FAA investigates after third skydiver dies in 2 months at Arizona facility
The most recent skydiving tragedy occurred on Feb. 16 when an unidentified 47-year-old man died at about 2 p.m. near Skydive Arizona, the Pinal County Sheriff's Office said Tuesday. Witnesses said he was a "very experienced skydiver," the sheriff's office said. No foul play is suspected.
A similar incident occurred earlier this month after a 46-year-old man died at the same facility when his parachute did not deploy during a free fall, the Eloy Police Department said in a Facebook post. In January, a 55-year-old woman also died after complications with her parachute at Skydive Arizona.
A spokesperson for the FAA said the agency's investigations of skydiving accidents focus on inspecting the packing of the parachute and reserve parachute, and flight rules for the pilot and aircraft. The FAA does not investigate to determine the cause of the event.
The FAA looks into every skydiving mishaps that's reported to the agency.
Many skydiving accidents occur because of the jumper, according to the United States Parachute Association. The group says that "oftentimes an experienced skydiver who is pushing the limits — makes an error in judgment while landing a perfectly functioning parachute."
In 2024, nine people died from a skydiving-related incident across the country, the United States Parachute Association reported.
Sneak peek: The People v. Kouri Richins
Old-Fashioned Beef Stew
Musk doubles down on email from federal employees, Trump backs him up
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
4 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Voters Sue Elon Musk, Say They Were Defrauded by $1M Petition Giveaway
A federal judge has ordered Elon Musk to face a proposed class-action lawsuit from voters who say they were misled into signing a petition in the buildup to the 2024 election by promises of a chance to win $1 million in a daily giveaway. The lawsuit, brought in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, invokes the Class Action Fairness Act and alleges that the total value of all class members' claims exceeds $5 million. It seeks damages and injunctive relief on behalf of petition signers who say they were wrongly induced to provide personal identifying information when signing the petition. Newsweek contacted lawyers for Musk and America PAC for comment via email on Thursday outside regular office hours. The case centers on whether Musk's America PAC promotion-announced in the run-up to the election to support Donald Trump's 2024 campaign in seven battleground states-was a genuine, random lottery or whether signers suffered harm when they supplied contact details later used for political targeting. Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has faced several legal challenges over America PAC and the $1 million petition giveaway. In October, the Department of Justice warned Musk that the promotion might violate federal election laws. If the lawsuit succeeds, Musk could face millions in damages, and the case could spur similar suits in other states where voters signed the petition. The complaint names Arizona resident Jacqueline McAferty as lead plaintiff and alleges that America PAC and Musk induced voters in seven battleground states-Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina-to sign a petition supporting free speech and Second Amendment positions by promising $1 million daily prizes chosen "randomly" until Election Day. The suit said petition signers were required to provide names, addresses, emails and phone numbers and that the defendants benefited by driving traffic to X, Musk's social platform, and by collecting valuable political contact data. It also alleges that the lottery was not random, giving voters no real chance to collect. In November, Musk's lawyers told a Pennsylvania judge that winners were not chosen at random but were selected in advance-contradicting Musk's own statements when he launched the contest. U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman ruled that McAferty plausibly alleged that she had been misled and that an expert could testify about the commercial value of battleground voters' contact information. U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman told Reuters on Wednesday: "It is plausible that plaintiff justifiably relied on those statements to believe that defendants were objectively offering her the chance to enter a random lottery-even if that is not what they subjectively intended to do." Jarrett L. Ellzey of EKSM LLP told Newsweek: "We are pleased with the Court's ruling and agree with Judge Pitman's careful reasoning. This decision affirms that our client and the proposed class have viable claims and deserve the opportunity to pursue justice." Elon Musk said at a Trump campaign event in Pennsylvania on October 19: "We are going to be awarding $1 million randomly to people who have signed the petition, every day, from now until the election." Christopher Peterson, a University of Utah law professor, told NBC News on November 5, 2024: "You cannot lawfully lie to the public about conducting a random sweepstakes, lottery, or contest and then rig the results to hand-select the winners. It really is not complicated. This is just fraud; a simple, ugly fraud on the public." The case, McAferty v. Musk et al., remains before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Pitman has denied dismissal, allowing discovery and further proceedings to go forward. Related Articles Elon Musk and JD Vance's Relationship Under Scrutiny Amid 2028 TalkElon Musk Responds to Report He's 'Pumping the Brakes' on Third Party PlansJudges Hand Elon Musk Double Legal BlowAshley St. Clair Launches 'Bad Advice' Podcast, Says She's Being Evicted 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Newsweek
7 hours ago
- Newsweek
Voters Sue Elon Musk, Say They Were Defrauded by $1M Petition Giveaway
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A federal judge has ordered Elon Musk to face a proposed class-action lawsuit from voters who say they were misled into signing a petition in the buildup to the 2024 election by promises of a chance to win $1 million in a daily giveaway. The lawsuit, brought in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, invokes the Class Action Fairness Act and alleges that the total value of all class members' claims exceeds $5 million. It seeks damages and injunctive relief on behalf of petition signers who say they were wrongly induced to provide personal identifying information when signing the petition. Newsweek contacted lawyers for Musk and America PAC for comment via email on Thursday outside regular office hours. Why It Matters The case centers on whether Musk's America PAC promotion—announced in the run-up to the election to support Donald Trump's 2024 campaign in seven battleground states—was a genuine, random lottery or whether signers suffered harm when they supplied contact details later used for political targeting. Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has faced several legal challenges over America PAC and the $1 million petition giveaway. In October, the Department of Justice warned Musk that the promotion might violate federal election laws. If the lawsuit succeeds, Musk could face millions in damages, and the case could spur similar suits in other states where voters signed the petition. Donald Trump, left, and Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk at a campaign event at the Butler Farm Show in Butler, Pennsylvania, on October 5, 2024. Donald Trump, left, and Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk at a campaign event at the Butler Farm Show in Butler, Pennsylvania, on October 5, 2024. Alex Brandon/AP What To Know The complaint names Arizona resident Jacqueline McAferty as lead plaintiff and alleges that America PAC and Musk induced voters in seven battleground states—Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina—to sign a petition supporting free speech and Second Amendment positions by promising $1 million daily prizes chosen "randomly" until Election Day. The suit said petition signers were required to provide names, addresses, emails and phone numbers and that the defendants benefited by driving traffic to X, Musk's social platform, and by collecting valuable political contact data. It also alleges that the lottery was not random, giving voters no real chance to collect. In November, Musk's lawyers told a Pennsylvania judge that winners were not chosen at random but were selected in advance—contradicting Musk's own statements when he launched the contest. U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman ruled that McAferty plausibly alleged that she had been misled and that an expert could testify about the commercial value of battleground voters' contact information. What People Are Saying U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman told Reuters on Wednesday: "It is plausible that plaintiff justifiably relied on those statements to believe that defendants were objectively offering her the chance to enter a random lottery—even if that is not what they subjectively intended to do." Jarrett L. Ellzey of EKSM LLP told Newsweek: "We are pleased with the Court's ruling and agree with Judge Pitman's careful reasoning. This decision affirms that our client and the proposed class have viable claims and deserve the opportunity to pursue justice." Elon Musk said at a Trump campaign event in Pennsylvania on October 19: "We are going to be awarding $1 million randomly to people who have signed the petition, every day, from now until the election." Christopher Peterson, a University of Utah law professor, told NBC News on November 5, 2024: "You cannot lawfully lie to the public about conducting a random sweepstakes, lottery, or contest and then rig the results to hand-select the winners. It really is not complicated. This is just fraud; a simple, ugly fraud on the public." What Happens Next The case, McAferty v. Musk et al., remains before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Pitman has denied dismissal, allowing discovery and further proceedings to go forward.
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Newsweek
Ashley St. Clair Launches 'Bad Advice' Podcast, Says She's Being Evicted
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Ashley St. Clair, who publicly identified Elon Musk as the father of her son Romulus earlier this year, has launched a podcast, Bad Advice with Ashley St. Clair, saying she was financially strained and facing eviction. "I'm getting evicted and Polymarket offered me $10,000 to do an ad read, so with that, the roof over my head has been brought to you by Polymarket," the 32-year-old right-wing political influencer and anti-woke warrior, said in the introduction to her first episode posted on Monday. Why it Matters Mother of two St. Clair's financial struggle intersects with an active legal dispute over custody and child support involving one of the world's most public billionaires, and competing accounts of payments and paternity have shaped media coverage and public debate. The podcast debut underscored the ongoing legal and public standoff between St. Clair and Musk over parentage, custody and payments. In March, 54-year-old Musk said that "despite not knowing for sure" whether St. Clair's child was his or not, he had given her $2.5 million and was sending her $500,000 a year. But St. Clair has said he withdrew most of his child support payments after she went public with their dispute. Newsweek has contacted Tesla and SpaceX, via email outside of working hours, for comment on behalf of Musk. bad advice ep. 1 brought to u by @Polymarket — Ashley St. Clair (@stclairashley) August 18, 2025 What To Know Ashley St. Clair opened the Bad Advice with Ashley St. Clair podcast by saying she had experienced "unplanned career suicide" and was starting the show in part for income; she said "I'm getting evicted and Polymarket offered me $10,000 to do an ad read." It comes after St. Clair, who also has a child with another father, said she had to sell her Tesla to "make up for the 60 percent cut that Elon made to our son's child support," in an interview with the Daily Mail in March. St. Clair publicly identified Musk as the father of her son Romulus in February and later filed for custody. In April, The Wall Street Journal reported that a LabCorp test found the that the probability Romulus is Musk's child is 99.9999 percent. At the time Musk, who is believed to have 14 children, slammed the WSJ, saying the celebrity news outlet TMZ was better than the historic political paper. "TMZ >> WSJ," he posted on X. St. Clair and her lawyers said Musk had at times paid material sums and later "substantially" reduced payments; Musk had earlier claimed he provided $2.5 million and said he was sending $500,000 a month, while St. Clair's side said payments were reduced after she went public. In her podcast, St. Clair also criticized Edward "Big Balls" Coristine, who had been assaulted while attempting to stop a carjacking in Washington, D.C; she mocked media portrayals of the attack and referenced national political reactions. "The White House in all of its brilliance, is apparently … considering giving "Big Balls" the presidential medal of freedom for getting his ass beat," she said, "which is fascinating because I was under the impression that Republicans were morally opposed to participation trophies." "Since when does losing a street fight make you Rosa Parks?" she joked. What People Are Saying St. Clair said on her podcast: "Unlike your Ben Shapiros or your Megyn Kellys, I'm not starting this because I think my big brain thoughts and my podcast mic are the greatest gift to humanity, I actually think I have the worst ideas, so, consider everything out of my mouth a cautionary tale." Musk said in April: "I don't know if the child is mine or not, but am not against finding out. No court order is needed. Despite not knowing for sure, I have given Ashley $2.5M and am sending her $500k/year." St. Clair responded at the time: "Elon, we asked you to confirm paternity through a test before our child (who you named) was even born. You refused. And you weren't sending *me* money, you were sending support for your child that you thought was necessary … until you withdrew it to maintain control and punish me for 'disobedience.' But you're really only punishing your son …" "America needs you to grow up, you petulant man-child," she added. What Happens Next The legal custody and support dispute remains active. The immediate developments to watch included any court filings that formally detail payments, custody arrangements and paternity test records, and any on-the-record comments from attorneys representing either side. St. Clair will likely continue recording podcast episodes, and Musk is yet to respond to her first one.
