Warbird Information Exchange

I have six seat parachutes that I use in my various warbirds. I have them repacked every 120 days per reg. I have used the same Master Rigger for some time now. He recently declined to repack the chutes because he attended a meeting where some attorney outlined the liability exposure with repacking for others. He also told me that Butler, Strong and others are actively replacing their 20 year rig life suggestion policy with a statement that a rig should be destroyed ( harness and canopy) after 20 years or 40 repacks, regardless of pull test outcome, to limit the manufacturers liability. In the past it has been based on a 40lb pull test and condition inspection.

My rigger is also a Master Skydiver. Funny thing is, he sees no problem assuming the risk of jumping out of airplanes, but finds it too risky to repack my seat pack chutes regardless of fee.

I still stand by my statement that liability, not mait, parts, cost, or anything else is the biggest risk we face.

_________________
Eric

"I spent most of my money on alcohol, women and skyraiders....and the rest of it I just wasted."

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you.

What to do?

_________________

Commemorative Air Force
Experimental Aircraft Association
Warbirds of America

What are you waiting for? Join us!

Best way to contact me- email my last name @gmail.com

Shakespeare said it best. Actually, he has his character "Dick the Butcher" say the line below.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"
Henry VI Part 2 Act 4 Scene 2

I think Eric is 100% correct on this point. In the end, liability issues are probably going to be the leading cause of sport aviation's demise in this country. Even my own attorney can only defend his trade by saying that 99% of all lawyers give the rest a bad name. If you think liability coverage is expensive for a warbird, try pricing it for the operation of a privately owned airport.

_________________
Albert Stix Jr.
"Work is the curse of the drinking class"

Why the big deal? 10 years is a good service life on a parachute. Especially one that gets walked and sat on and not used. The liability is not from warbirds- it is from the idiots who know more than the riggers and jump trash that should have been destroyed long ago. And how often do you really do a pre-flight on your parachute? Most don't and step in the cockpit onto their seat rig with whatever hydraulic fluid, oil, or dirt is on their shoes or boots. If that rigger didn't pull the parachute out of a box from the factory, he is opening himself up way wide because he did not do the initial inspection. So in reality, he has to go through every stitch in the rig, trust the log books of the guy before him, trust you that you will care for your parachute well (which doesn't happen in most cases) and still will get sued if you have any kind of problem with the rig or get hurt in a parachute jump. Is that worth the pack fee? And you have no way to mitigate that for your rigger. You can't restrict your insurance company from suing him and most of these guys don't use or don't see the need for boilerplate to hold themselves harmless. You can blame it on the insurance companies, too, not just the lawyers. They are still taking out their 9/11 losses on GA, and where is that talked about when it comes down to stuff like this?

Hey, it's easy to bash lawyers. I'm no big fan of all of them, and I've run into my share of slimy ones and ones who did nothing for me. But they have a very important place in society. Most people don't understand the law and don't care about it until they are in a court case standing to lose big dollars or get big jail time. Lawyers have a very complex set of tools to do their work- millions of f***** up laws and varying judicial precedent that may or may not be patent in a changing world. They work hand to mouth most of the time, and get put down by their clients while doing their work. Most of them are out there just trying to preserve the spirit of the law and get equitable results between clients who aren't smart enough to come to agreements between themselves, usually because they are too stupid or greedy to think of anybody but themselves. You can put them down all you want, but in this world of trashy lawmaking, they are a fourth check and balance against our increasingly self-serving government and the political entities they protect.

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!

I was talking to a guy who was a warbird owner, as well as being a partner in a law firm, about the effectiveness of Hold Harmless agreements one time. His view was that they were not worth the paper they were written on.

That discussion took place almost 20 years ago. I don’t think the situation has gotten any better since then.

_________________

Commemorative Air Force
Experimental Aircraft Association
Warbirds of America

What are you waiting for? Join us!

Best way to contact me- email my last name @gmail.com

I still stand by my statement that liability, not mait, parts, cost, or anything else is the biggest risk we face.


One reason medical school admissions and admission standards are way down.

One doctor even refused to treat a well known malpractice lawyer recently.

But then again, the rich lawyers run the country through the legislatures at the local, state and federal levels.

Things won't change until we get some "real" Americans in there.

Look at the lack of aircraft production in the USA for almost 20 years. All because they did not build an aircraft which prevented a pilot from running out of gas, flying into IMC etc.

Speaking from a UK point of view, we have an increasingly litigious society here too. I can only assume it's coming from across the Atlantic, because I don't hear of other countries going the same way. I stress here I don't say it's not happening, but if it is, it's not being reported here.

I'm inclined to disagree with Forgotten Field's statement of "trying to preserve the spirit of the law".

With the advent of "no win, no fee" arrangements, that's the last thing they're trying to do. It's more a case of "who can we blame/screw so we get paid".

As Oscardeuce said, the rich lawyers run the country...

A good percentage of our MPs are lawyers and most of the rest are teachers or doctors. None of them have ever done a "proper" day's work in their lives and have no idea how the real world works.

I won't say anymore in case it breaches the political rules although this isn't party politcs, I blame all of them.

Forgotten Field wrote:



As usual, I couldn't disagree more.

Forgotten Field also provided this gem.



I don't appreciate the "idiot" comment.

Here's the deal.

First, I have done quite a lot of skydiving in addition to flying. I have a very healthy respect for the need for perfect equipment in this area. (By the way, I feel the same for the ALSE equpment I wear when I fly, Helmet, serviceable nomex flight suit and gloves, leather or nomex boots, same as I wore when I flew for the military). I thoroughly understand your point about people not treating their equipment properly. I am not one of them. You would have a very difficult time identifing my chutes from new ones. Obviously that is only aesthetics, I never leave them anywhere where they will get excessive UV or any type of weather.

My point is that I believe they should be subject to rigorous testing and inspection each and everytime they are repacked. If they pass these tests no problem. If the fail these test they should be repaired or replaced as nessecary.

The main complaint that I have is with the harness not the canopy, I can understand that the canopy should be replaced periodically, but the current guidance from Strong and Butler is to destroy the entire rig at a specific time regardless of condition. The harness and container could be used for a very long time if tested and kept in excellent serviceable condition.

How would you like it if that same standard was applied to aging airframes? What would you say if all IA's said they didn't feel comfortable putting their signatures in logbooks older than 25 years?

Just something to think about.

_________________
Eric

"I spent most of my money on alcohol, women and skyraiders....and the rest of it I just wasted."

Eric,

"How would you like it if that same standard was applied to aging airframes? What would you say if all IA's said the didn't feel comfortable putting their signatures in logbooks older than 25 years? "


I'm afraid to say that this is already happening and could become an alarming trend for exactly the same reason with your parachutes.
David

To add to Sabremech comments, there is a trend for FBO's to refuse to work on aircraft that are over 18 years old and therefore past the statute of repose. Since the lawyers can not sue the manufacturer the deepest pockets are the FBO's. So they are being told by their insurance companies to not work on the older aircraft. I have read this from AOPA and at least one other place that escapes my memory.

I have at least 12 parachutes and this one would hit me big time as well. Luckily my rigger is a man of average wealth and way above average age. So I hope he doesn't do the same thing as Eric's rigger.

We do not like lawyers not only because of the cost but also because of the amount of time expended keeping our hard earned money safe.

Don't forget the fact that most of the guys I know are disabling their Mustang rear seats due to the liability issue.

In my business there is a regular occurance of nuisance lawsuits that cost me time and money. All of this is transferred directly to the customer. This hurts the economy as well as my customers.

I often offer aircraft rides for local charities for their various fundraisers. I do this against my better judgement and the advice of my attorneys. Hopefully I will never face an aviation lawsuit.

Trust me you would be jaded as I am if you have paid the money I have to defend yourself against these nuisance lawsuits.

Eric, he term "idiot" was not directed to you or mentioned in reference to you or your personal habitus regarding parachutes. From your other posts about operating aircraft, I would have expected you to be thorough with all of your equipment especially parachutes. It's good you have done more than a little training with your egress equipment- most haven't. If you are a skydiver, and have been around parachutists, you may have observed a few safety issues. I don't know how much jumping you have done, but personally, I have witnessed more serious violations by people with licenses than people who jumped static line in the military. An "A" or "B" license does not make a skydiver a better judge of condition or safety than a rigger. There are people out there with little experience who know more than any rigger out there, and will get themselves killed for the same reason. A good friend of mine was killed the day after he got his "B" license for doing something stupid that I (with no USPA license) knew not to do. I do agree with you regarding harnesses, but not seat pack harnesses for this reason; there are too many people out there who just leave them in the cockpit and don't properly inspect them before a flight. I have WWII harnesses that I would jump if a rigger would sign off on them. But the insurance companies and lawyers don't discriminate between a harness and a canopy, do they? In their eyes, if a rigger touches a rig, he should know by osmosis if the canopy is okay inside, right?
Also, this is not a new phenomenon and I'm curious why this is just happening now with your rigger. I'm surprised this didn't happen to you earlier as I heard about it a year and a half ago when a friend had to dispose of his parachutes for the same reason. Maybe there were certain insurance companies which enforced this practice earlier and it has spread in the industry. I don't know that, and am just speculating.
Lawsuits. Fact of life. Cost of doing business. If you incorporate for tax purposes, and thence oblige yourself to use a lawyer, you have no choice. I really do sympathize with those who have been hit by the judicial lottery and am as disgusted with the nuisance lawsuits as you are. It hasn't happened to me but it did happen to my wife. But do you stop doing public good because you are afraid of getting sued? Not me, but that is my VERY personal choice. I know I might get tagged some time by somebody who wants a piece of me. That is the risk. If I lose everything, I'll just start again. I don't care. What I am tired of is people using the three "L" (lawsuit, lawyer, litigation) words every time they refuse to do something. The lawyers may be a scourge, but the people who live their lives in constant fear of them are, to put it bluntly, cowards. And they drag our society down just as much as the people who sue over hot coffee in McDonalds.
Old airframe standards? Why do you think EAA pushed this "Antique" category? Because they know the trend is for less and less support to be available out there, and they want to divorce the overall liability of GA from the aging airframes. Why do people oppose it? Probably because it will be hard to get a ride exemption for your airplane and that will reduce the already compromised revenue streams available to antique/warbird operators to preserve/maintain their airplanes AND it will raise insurance costs. My opposition to it? Because it won't change a blessed thing except for some of the paperwork you do. How does that help out in safety or the integrity of the process? Not a bit and in my opinion it is evidence that cowardice or irrational fear of consequences drive these decisions.

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!

Forgotten Field wrote:



Sorry I read the idiot comment the wrong way.

I agree with you, I have seen some of the craziest safety lapses imaginable in the sport jumping enviroment (trash packing, borrowing rigs, not to mention some BASE jumping judgement).

I agree with most of your last post, but I want to make it clear that my intention was not just to whine about this, but to solict some other feedback to help me get some perspective on the situation. I am very fortunate in that it's not really a cost issue (although, all this s**t is really starting to add up), as much as a principle issue.

My rigger is a P.H.D. physics professor, who does parachute consulting work for the military and several civilian corporations. Needless to say, he really knows what he is talking about and I have great respect for him.
He summed it up best when he said " One would kind of hope that the was some test data behind the policy, but there isn't". I don't think he likes it anymore than I do.

As for letting liability concerns, run my life, I don't. I still give rides in my airplanes, I just worry a lot more about it.

_________________
Eric

"I spent most of my money on alcohol, women and skyraiders....and the rest of it I just wasted."

Eric,
Are these manufacturer guidelines, FAA reg changes, or just recommended practices by USPA? I have been out of actively jumping for almost 10 years, but this is what I heard; when my friend lost his rigs to the grim reaper "unserviceable" he said most of the rigger's comments were about traceability of components. One of his rigs was built on a USAF harness, with the old capewell style quick release, and a modern pack tray (I don't know which manufacturer). His rigger (whose experience level I do not know) looked at that one with a real critical eye, and said he wouldn't pack it. The other chute he had was fairly new, and some things had to be replaced (I don't know what). This happened a year or 18 months ago. I'll call my friend tomorrow and see if he has any input on this. He follows issues like this in detail and may have some insight.

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!

The views about lawyers in this thread, as in others, have been very interesting to read. For those of us in the legal profession it is difficult to reconcile them with the reality we experience.

It occurred to me to express a view like the following: "American doctors long ago abandoned the Hippocratic Oath; they work only to buy large houses, cars, boats and planes with the money of those who are suffering; and they have wielded great political influence to make the U.S. medical system serve their interests much better than those of their patients." My original thought was to post that view as an example of something that would seem about as informed and accurate to a doctor as the views expressed here about lawyers seem to lawyers. But then I realized that the above view is sincerely held by a lot of people with considerable experience with the medical system, especially patients but also many nurses, hospital administrators, practitioners of alternative medicine, etc. Their experiences are real and valid. And so too are the views of those of you who have had experiences with the legal system, whether as actual or potential litigants or whatever.

So, even though Forgotten Field is the only contributor to this thread who has posted any position remotely resembling the legal profession as I experience it, I cannot dismiss any of the views on this thread out of hand. That does not mean that all views are equally well informed or thought out, but they are all worth reading. I look forward to reading more.

August

August,

As an airline pilot, my industry is a poster child for bad service, but in the end it gave the people and the politicians what they wanted--cheap, frequent flights affordable to the masses--not just for the affluent or business travelers like when we were kids. The system was never meant to handle 85% full aircraft system-wide day after day. Imagine how much smoother it'd go if fares were much higher and loads were at 50% or 60% which would smooth out delays and give the system margin for error--but that ain't what the people and the pols want. Like you, I have an insider's perspective on the industry I work in and empathize with the legitimate complaints of those who pay to use it and get a raw deal. Like any industry the legal profession has it's sheisters who make a fortune in an unethical manner, but I believe the majority to be upright professionals trying to do the best job for their clients. As someone not in the legal profession, my impression is trial lawyers are an easy target since absent tort reform, there's too much incentive for frivilous litigation--chime in here if you think that's an unfair statement. The system is bad but like the air travel system, it is what the people want until they/we make it otherwise. Kind of like the hometown pol that runs for congress, is a true believer in his party, gets elected, then when he gets to the cesspool in D.C. gets corrupted by special interests $$ and strong-arm party leadership apparatus--the freshman congressman hardly stood a chance to remain above the fray. Maybe there's a parallel here to the legal system the incentive there is now to sue...with tort reform there could be disincentive for many frivolous lawsuits and insurance health care and many other things wouldn't be so sky-high. Your thoughts?