0
skydived19006

USPA BOD Age Waivers

Recommended Posts

There are a couple of waiver requests on the S&T agenda for the upcoming USPA BOD meeting. These two waiver requests happen to be coming from two DZOs for their 14 year old sons (one child already has 70 plus jumps).

I've been toying with a BSR language change suggestion, and bouncing it around with another DZO, another S&TA, and a lawyer. Here's what I've come to (my opinion):

1. The USPA should eliminate the age requirement from the BSRs. This is an issue of law not a USPA rule issue.

2. Change the rule to simply state that all jumpers (that seems to be what USPA calls people who exit an airplane with two parachutes...) be of Legal Age of Contract within the State of their activity, and a validly executed waiver be on file.

USPA requires that GMs sign a Pledge, part of that Pledge is that GMs include USPA as a waived party. Therefore the current 16 year old rule is moot, except maybe for non USPA GM DZs. How can I include USPA as a waived party if no valid waiver exists? BTW, notarized parental consent does not a valid waiver make.

People kept throwing into the argument "USPA is hanging their ass out if they approve 14 year olds to jump." How is 14 different from 16, or 12 under the law? Again, you're quickly back to Legal Age of Contract, period, no exceptions. 17 years of age plus 364 days is no different from 10 years of age with regard to the valid waiver. If the BOD in inclined to allow waivers to the age requirement, maybe it would be best that the USPA stop "sanctioning" the activity and eleminate the rule all together. Basically leave the DZO to hang his own ass out by himself if he so decides. I'm sure that at least one National Director/DZO/Father of 14 year old skydiver would agree with me on this.

Thoughts?

Martin Myrtle
DZO, S&TA, IE, Father of underage sons, etc.

Edit for my very poor spelling
Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not lower the driving and drinking ages too?

The same mentality of adults protecting children exist in having a minimum age requirement. Are some 14 year-olds mature enough to jump? I'm sure. Are all? No way.

Skydiving is a privilege, not a right. Wait two years, or, spend two years in the tunnel then be ahead of the curve when it's age-appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm in agreement with you, Martin.
Changing the USPA BSR's is very different from lowering drinking and driving ages. Those are state laws, not representational organization rules.



Which way? Eliminate the age requirement, or make it Legal Age of Contract?
Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't agree with you on this Martin.

The USPA has exposed it's self to liability by taking on the USPA Tandem Instructor rating as evidenced by legal actions and settlements resulting from tandem incidents/accidents by USPA TI's.

Since we have that window of liability, we (USPA) cannot afford to open that window further by allowing what society perceives as a child to become injured. The fallout from an injury, or death would clean out the USPA.

Perception is reality, and a tandem student under the age of 18 that were disabled or killed would be seen far worse than an adult by a jury of 12.

Additionally, I think there is at least one manufacturer of Tandem equipment that would be very against this idea, it's part of their user agreement that the owners of their equipment do not do tandems under the age of 18. If policy (BSR) were to change I wonder how that would affect their decision to continue to support the sport/tandem market?

Finally, as an industry, we've got a pretty shit track record for tandem safety in the last few years, we really don't need to expand our opportunities to fuck up.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lemme re-visit my comment.
I don't think the age limit should change so that it allows/encourages younger people to do a tandem jump.
I merely think the USPA shouldn't be in the discussion.

It was very interesting to be a fly on the wall during the APF debates in Australia last year when they were proposing 10 years as a minimum age. Arguments from both sides made sense. At the end of the day, however...most agreed that the government already controls this. FWIW, NZ has an excellent track record, but they're also a very different culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't agree with you on this Martin.

The USPA has exposed it's self to liability by taking on the USPA Tandem Instructor rating as evidenced by legal actions and settlements resulting from tandem incidents/accidents by USPA TI's.

Since we have that window of liability, we (USPA) cannot afford to open that window further by allowing what society perceives as a child to become injured. The fallout from an injury, or death would clean out the USPA.

Perception is reality, and a tandem student under the age of 18 that were disabled or killed would be seen far worse than an adult by a jury of 12.

Additionally, I think there is at least one manufacturer of Tandem equipment that would be very against this idea, it's part of their user agreement that the owners of their equipment do not do tandems under the age of 18. If policy (BSR) were to change I wonder how that would affect their decision to continue to support the sport/tandem market?

Finally, as an industry, we've got a pretty shit track record for tandem safety in the last few years, we really don't need to expand our opportunities to fuck up.



So JP, your thought would be to remove the "16 with parental consent" option?

Most of us automatically go to tandem in our thinking, and I understand the manufacturers concerns, and requirements. I didn't specify tandem, should 16 year olds, with no valid waiver be allowed to do AFF, IAD, or SL? If 16 is a "yes", then why not 14?

Should the USPA simply step back, and require a valid participation agreement? Parental consent as I understand will not hold up in court, a parent can not forfeit their child's right to sue. In Nebraska the Age of Majority is 19. With 18 as a rule, the manufacturers and USPA are still on the line with an 18 year old minor in Nebraska since there can be no valid waiver.
Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I let my 14 year old solo a sail plane, legal under the FAR's, is that child endangerment? illegal under state law? Why should 14 year olds be legal to solo a sail plane, yet not be afforded to jump?

The FAR's say nothing in regards to age to jump.

I started jumping at age 16 and i see no problems allowing 16 year olds to jump in any progression, but I also don't make the states laws.

With that said, if it's legal under the FAR's for solo flight in an aircraft at 14, it should legal to allow a flight that exits an aircraft in flight two years later.;)

i think the age should be left alone, the FAA looks to the USPA to set guidance for sport parachuting in the US, we're saying two years after your allowed to solo a sailplane, you can jump out of one.:)

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think that Tandems are perceived by the public as being a "safe" joyride whereas SL/IAD/AFF are perceived as being "real" skydiving and therefor having assumed risk.


Well, compared to SL/IAD tandems ARE a (relatively) safe joyride. I have taken minors on tandems and taught and dropped minors on IAD and I would much prefer to take them on a tandem specifically because on a tandem they have adult supervision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. No waiver from USPA. To waiver a rule would imply that the rule must make sense for most people, therefore why not for all?
2. Remove the age restriction and allow DZ's to make this decision. I will not teach or JM/coach anyone under 18, which is the legal age of consent at our DZ, nor will any other Instructors. If I was living in a state with 19 as age of consent, I wouldn't take anyone under 19. Mike Mullen's kids had tons of underage jumps and did just fine. This can/should be decided by individual DZ's. To have a reg like this and either waiver it or pretent it wasn't happening (Mullens) seems foolish and actually leaving USPA open to charges of negligence.
USPA could "recommend" all jumpers be of legal age, outside of the BSR's, and allow this to be decided on an individual basis. As for tandem manufacturers, they're still free to set whatever policy they want.
3. Leave the waiver requirement in place.
This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

1. No waiver from USPA. To waiver a rule would imply that the rule must make sense for most people, therefore why not for all?
2. Remove the age restriction and allow DZ's to make this decision. I will not teach or JM/coach anyone under 18, which is the legal age of consent at our DZ, nor will any other Instructors. If I was living in a state with 19 as age of consent, I wouldn't take anyone under 19. Mike Mullen's kids had tons of underage jumps and did just fine. This can/should be decided by individual DZ's. To have a reg like this and either waiver it or pretent it wasn't happening (Mullens) seems foolish and actually leaving USPA open to charges of negligence.
USPA could "recommend" all jumpers be of legal age, outside of the BSR's, and allow this to be decided on an individual basis. As for tandem manufacturers, they're still free to set whatever policy they want.
3. Leave the waiver requirement in place.



I like your thinking. The idea of putting a recommendation in somewhere other than BSRs would seem to relieve the USPA without "sanctioning" underage, but still "allowing" it. Not a BSR, then not something that anyone would be putting their ratings, memberships, etc on the line. It would also satisfy the "The FAA looks to the USPA..." argument.

Martin
Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the legal exposure for the USPA as a club, for members w.r.t. insurance permiums and for tandem rig makers who I think have their own limits?

My understanding is that the age limit is there because until someone reaches the age of majority the waiver cannot be signed with informed consent. So if they get hurt they can sue you later & the waiver carries no weight.

That's a BIG difference when it comes to age, but I'm not a lawyer and neither are you so I cannot be sure.

My input on this as a member is don't do it without taking expert legal advice and LISTENING to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

My input on this as a member is don't do it without taking expert legal advice and LISTENING to it.



The BOD has a history of ignoring “Advice of Council” there is no reason to believe they would change on this issue.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What is the legal exposure for the USPA as a club, for members w.r.t. insurance permiums and for tandem rig makers who I think have their own limits?

My understanding is that the age limit is there because until someone reaches the age of majority the waiver cannot be signed with informed consent. So if they get hurt they can sue you later & the waiver carries no weight.

Quote



It is true that when individuals turn 18 (or 19 in a couple of states) they can "renounce" any contracts signed as a minor, so that is indeed an issue.

However, this exact same issue applies to _all_ sports, to include motocross, scuba, skateboarding, skiing, etc., etc., yet the governing organizations of all of these sports are completely silent on whether or not minors can participate; it is left solely and completely to the individual business to determine the level of legal risk with which it feels comfortable.

USPA stands alone in continuing to interfere in the business decisions of group member drop zones and individual members to decide the age at which customers can participate.

See the last issue of SKYDIVING Magazine for a detailed look at this issue and the manner in which USPA stunts the growth of the sport by making it essentially impossible for young people to participate.

B|

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't agree with you on this Martin.

The USPA has exposed it's self to liability by taking on the USPA Tandem Instructor rating as evidenced by legal actions and settlements resulting from tandem incidents/accidents by USPA TI's.

Since we have that window of liability, we (USPA) cannot afford to open that window further by allowing what society perceives as a child to become injured. The fallout from an injury, or death would clean out the USPA.

Perception is reality, and a tandem student under the age of 18 that were disabled or killed would be seen far worse than an adult by a jury of 12.

Additionally, I think there is at least one manufacturer of Tandem equipment that would be very against this idea, it's part of their user agreement that the owners of their equipment do not do tandems under the age of 18. If policy (BSR) were to change I wonder how that would affect their decision to continue to support the sport/tandem market?

Finally, as an industry, we've got a pretty shit track record for tandem safety in the last few years, we really don't need to expand our opportunities to fuck up.



There you go mixing and matching again.

When USPA took over the tandem certification program, it put itself directly into the line of liability fire.

D'OH! That was a good decision, wasn't it?

Eliminating an age requirement removes USPA from being a party to anything legally related thereto.

D'OH!

And if a tandem manufacturer doesn't want to go along with no age requirement, then FINE; it's a PRIVATE BUSINESS making a choice about the level of legal risk with which it feels comfortable.

Finally, congrats on demolishing the tandem straw man. The point of this thread is USPA's age restrictions, not the tandem safety record.

So let's get back on task, JP: please explain why USPA can't do what sporting associations related to scuba, car racing, skiing, snowboarding, skateboarding, motocross and numerous other risk sports do and just keep its pie hole shut about age?

B|
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0