Re: [Faber] Fatality in Portugal
With all due respect Stefan, the fact you and the deceased shared a similar love for low objects over high ones doesn't have any bearing on the notion of responsibility which is being discussed here.
There seems to be some misunderstanding here. I don't believe anyone has suggested that ALL the responsibility for this fatality lies with the assistant. I don't see anyone even suggesting that the bulk of the responsibility lies with the assistant, just that SOME responsibility lies with the assistant in not checking the bridle routing when it was perfectly feasible and possible to do so.
To deny that ANY responsibility falls on the PC assistants shoulders is to deny that the PC assistant is capable of altering the course of events, which you would have to be in utter denial to conclude. If you agree that the the PC assistant could have (even if you don't agree they should have) spotted the error and corrected it, then you have to agree that logically some element of responsibility lies with them.
This post isn't about recrimination. It's not about making someone feel worse than they already do. I reiterate, sincerely, my heart goes out to the guy. It's this kind of scenario that really did give me the fear when i was jumping regularly and performing PCA's for people. It was the gravity of what i was doing, and the possibility of not doing the job well that often gave me the most fear on a jump.
This is about hammering home the FACT, the indisputable FACT, that when someone hands you their Pilot chute on a low jump, they hand you responsibility too. How so? Because you now have the opportunity and power to change the course of events. If you agree that an assistant is a capable of behaving irresponsibly with a pilot chute assist (for instance throwing the pilot chute after the jumper has exited - what we termed a freefall assist - in order to scare the jumper) then you MUST agree that they are therefore capable of behaving responsibly, and if you agree with that then you agree that an assistant carries a burden of responsibility. That's not semantics. That's not some trick, that is just logical deduction.
If you insist that the PC assistant is absolutely, unequivocally without responsibility here then it follows you have to be saying that at no point could they have altered the course of events, and if you insist on that, then there are absolutely zero lessons that can be learned from this incident from a PC Assistants point of view. No lessons can be learned here for the future!
Really? Is that really where we're heading here?