Mar 10, 2012, 8:39 PM
Post #76 of 90
(869 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
They don't make three-wheelers in general anymore because of lawsuits...
In reply to:
Oh that's right, ...because people were putting untrained, unqualified riders on them and the kids were making bad decisions...turning them too sharply at speeds not recommended and getting hurt.
Makes perfect sense...pull them from the market and make a more idiot proof product!
Is that what you're suggesting the parachute manufactures do?
You mean like three-ring releases? RSLs? Skyhook? AADs? Audibles? Dual parachute containers?
Woosh
So, your solution would be to simply not let anyone under the age of 18 ride a three-wheeler?
Mar 10, 2012, 9:14 PM
Post #77 of 90
(858 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sacex250] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Quote:
The BSR's do not empower the manufacturers.
Yes, they do! Why does there need to be a BSR? Oh yeah, because the manufacturers cannot specify age limits on their gear through the FAA. So, by using the USPA as a choke-point then they have control over what the GM dropzones do, and, ultimately, what members using the dropzones do.
Can't help ya here, bro. You seem to believe that USPA's authority comes before that of the manufacturer's relationship with the FAA. If that's your truth I don't know what I can say.
Mar 11, 2012, 12:11 PM
Post #79 of 90
(826 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Does anyone have any more info on this new BSR?:
Quote:
This section [SIM 2-1 E.4.c.(5)] read: "(5) All student tandem skydives must be conducted in accordance with the specific manufacturer’s age requirements for the tandem system used for that jump."
The age requirements are on the user of the equipment, not on the equipment itself.
FAIL.
According to your excerpt and English Sentence Structure 101, the age requirements are, in fact, not on the user of the equipment, but on the equipment itself.
English Sentence Structure 101: The subject object of the sentence preposition is "tandem system" -- not "user," "passenger" or "student."
Thus this section -- as written, not intended -- specifically refers to the age of the tandem system being used, not to the users thereof.
Again, USPA and the manufacturers have now given lawyers a green light to go after any manufacturer fielding equipment that is not at least 18 years old.
LOL
Good job, BOD. Better do an EC emergency change and fix that. All you need to do is this:
[SIM 2-1 E.4.c.(5)]:
IS: "(5) All student tandem skydives must be conducted in accordance with the specific manufacturer’s age requirements for the tandem system used for that jump."
SHOULD BE: "(5) All tandem skydives must be conducted in accordance with the specific tandem manufacturer’s student/passenger age requirements for its tandem systems."
44
P.S. Helping the BOD fix its functionally illiterate sentence structure is in no way an endorsement of:
a) the concept of age restrictions generally; or
b) codifying manufacturer business practices into the operating rules and policies of a membership sporting association specifically.
I just don't want my organization going off an another dollar-eating skyride because its alleged leaders can't think straight during their meetings.
Kudos and congratulations to the USPA Executive Committee for heeding advice and walking this silliness back a few steps.
Few bureaucracies have leadership with the fortitude or foresight to not only admit they are (or even may) be wrong but to actually take concrete action to change course.
Naturally, we don't know how all this will come out at the next BOD meeting (to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, no one's life, liberty or gear is safe while our BOD is in session*), but the fact that the EC acted swiftly and decisively is a good sign, and they deserve our thanks.
Good on ya, guys.
44
* Sometimes attributed to Mark Twain and Judge Gideon Tucker.
(This post was edited by robinheid on Mar 11, 2012, 12:16 PM)
Mar 19, 2012, 8:26 AM
Post #81 of 90
(740 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Has the board consulted legal council about the legal exposure this may cause?
I don't see where we are protecting the manufacturers from lawsuits. If they already set the age of use how is the USPA BSR adding any meaningful legal defense to the manufacturers for lawsuits brought by underage litigants?
I do see it adding a layer of inconsistency that could get the USPA drawn into lawsuits.
Picture this, lawsuit is brought against a canopy manufacturer who did not have a age restriction, maybe the whole system didn't have an age-restriction.
Personal injury lawyer makes a case that age requirements must be important to safety since many manufacturers set this age. USPA also has taken the position that age matters because they piggy back of the manufacturers and have a BSR.
Personal injury lawyer states that by not setting a blanket age restriction USPA failed to keep the injured party safe.
Am I off base here?
Edit: for spelling only, personally injury lawyer, wtf was I typing!
(This post was edited by DougH on Mar 19, 2012, 10:56 AM)
Mar 19, 2012, 10:10 AM
Post #82 of 90
(725 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DougH] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Has the board consulted legal council about the legal exposure this may cause?
I don't see where we are protecting the manufacturers from lawsuits. If they already set the age of use how is the USPA BSR adding any meaningful legal defense to the manufacturers for lawsuits brought by underage litigants?
I do see it adding a layer of inconsistency that could get the USPA drawn into lawsuits.
Picture this, lawsuit is brought against a canopy manufacturer who did not have a age restriction, maybe the whole system didn't have an age-restriction.
Personally injury lawyer makes a case that age requirements must be important to safety since many manufacturers set this age. USPA also has taken the position that age matters because they piggy back of the manufacturers and have a BSR.
Personally injury lawyer states that by not setting a blanket age restriction USPA failed to keep the injured party safe.
Am I off base here?
No, you threw a strike. I wrote a story in the last issue of SKYDIVING about the legal ramifications of letting minors jump, and in a sidebar I examined the general legal climate surrounding any risky sporting activity.
One thing I found: When portable, anyone-can-use-them defibrillators showed up, many recreation centers did not get one because they were afraid of being sued if someone misused one, it didn't work as advertised, whatever.
Then someone sued a recreation center because it did NOT have one -- and the legal argument was pretty much exactly what you posited:
"Personal injury lawyer states that by not setting a blanket age restriction USPA keeping a defibrillator on-site, the center failed to keep the injured party safe."
The legal concept of which the USPA BOD seems to be wholly ignorant is "staying silent" on a given matter rather than establishing a position, the purpose of which is to avoid becoming entangled and/or targeted over that matter.
It really is Skyride all over again in that USPA is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong and will most likely get bitten again and the membership (and the sport) will pay the price.
Hopefully, the EC's decisive action portends well for the full BOD cutting this streamer away at the next meeting, Ben Franklin's maxim notwithstanding.
Mar 20, 2012, 6:21 PM
Post #83 of 90
(666 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DougH] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
If they already set the age of use how is the USPA BSR adding any meaningful legal defense to the manufacturers for lawsuits brought by underage litigants?
Strike Two, A USPA BSR would effectivly protect manufacturers from litigation by eliminating anyone under the age of majority from the sport. The manufacturers in their self-serving view of the world are afraid of getting sued by a minor so they seek to manipulate USPA into eliminating all minors from the sport. It's just another example of big business playing big brother.
The underlying fact here is that the manufacturers cannot set an age limit on who uses their sporting equipment. They can set a recommendation, and they're trying to get the USPA to enforce it as a de facto restriction. It's not USPAs place to do that.
Mar 21, 2012, 5:26 PM
Post #85 of 90
(619 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sacex250] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Quote:
If they already set the age of use how is the USPA BSR adding any meaningful legal defense to the manufacturers for lawsuits brought by underage litigants?
Strike Two, A USPA BSR would effectivly protect manufacturers from litigation by eliminating anyone under the age of majority from the sport. The manufacturers in their self-serving view of the world are afraid of getting sued by a minor so they seek to manipulate USPA into eliminating all minors from the sport. It's just another example of big business playing big brother.
The underlying fact here is that the manufacturers cannot set an age limit on who uses their sporting equipment. They can set a recommendation, and they're trying to get the USPA to enforce it as a de facto restriction. It's not USPAs place to do that.
Here's one of the first things you've said on this forum that I agree with! The exception to what you've written, is that a manufacturer MAY place an age restriction on the use of their equipment. People can choose to ignore it, and if injured will have been using it outside of manufacturer's recommendations, just as those who are jumping equipment over TSO limits are.
The only party that can effectively create such rules is the FAA. If the USPA puts this BSR back into effect, they only expose the organization to liability when (as history has shown) they fail to enforce and cause sanctions agains violators.
Mar 29, 2012, 12:12 PM
Post #87 of 90
(505 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RIGGER160] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Strike Two, A USPA BSR would effectivly protect manufacturers from litigation by eliminating anyone under the age of majority from the sport.
IF they are a USPA member...if not then a BSR is meaningless to them
True, if the Manufacturers didn't have it as their rule too. But the number of under the age of majority is a not a big enough factor to impact solo sport rig sales.
Tandem Jumps is different. Which is why a few DZ's don't use US made gear for Tandem Ops. The DZ's that do, have the age of majority (mostly 18) as the Manufacturer directed minimum age to participate.
Mar 31, 2012, 9:00 AM
Post #89 of 90
(449 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dabase] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
According to the Parachute Industry Association, whose representatives brought this request to the USPA Board, all of the U.S. equipment manufacturers that PIA represents require users of their equipment to be the age of legal majority.
Where have the manufacturers stated that? I looked around at a few and haven't found it.
Apr 3, 2012, 6:48 AM
Post #90 of 90
(386 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RIGGER160] New BSR Affects Everyone
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Correct thats why i'm confused as to why the USPA would waste their time on this.
Because they felt, wrongly, they needed to do this to help out. Reality is the Manufacturers needed to enforce their own rules and USPA go back to be a INDIVIDUAL Membership, none DZO, organization.
The Manufacturers brought this one due to our society not taking responsibility for its own actions.
