USPA Raises Minimum Age to 18... Whatcha think?

[chuckakers 370]

skydived19006

I wonder if a current 16, 17 year old licensed skydiver will be grandfathered in....

Yes they are, as are those who have already made a jump as long as they get a license by an arbitrary cut-off date.

That's something else that seems weird. According to one BOD member, this is mostly about liability. If that's the case why would anyone be grandfathered? If a minor with a license sues, the waiver would be no less enforceable than if a non-licensed minor sued.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[MikeTJumps 4]

It was a matter of appeasement of those who still wanted to stop the age limitation. By allowing those who are already jumping to get a license, it was "give and take" in order to get the motion passed.

Mike Turoff
Instructor Examiner, USPA
Co-author of Parachuting, The Skydiver's Handbook

[chuckakers 370]

Interesting - USPA will still issue licenses to 16 year old members jumping outside the U.S.

"For skydivers jumping outside of the U.S., USPA will issue licenses only to those 16 or older."

So would the minor then not be legal to jump in the U.S. at a DZ that would allow it, or would that minor fall under the exemption for licensed jumpers?

If they could jump under the exemption - as crazy as it sounds - a minor could get trained in some 3rd world backwards ass country and then jump in the U.S. without a problem.

This thing just keeps getting sillier.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[BIGUN 1,053]

chuckakers

If a minor with a license sues, the waiver would be no less enforceable than if a non-licensed minor sued.

Not always true - mental capacity.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[chuckakers 370]

BIGUN

*** If a minor with a license sues, the waiver would be no less enforceable than if a non-licensed minor sued.

Not always true - mental capacity.

I don't think that comes into play. A law that makes a waiver unenforceable for a minor wouldn't be different just because the person is competent in the activity.

That would be akin to saying a minor can enter into a contract as long as they are smart enough to understand all the implications of it.

The legal age of majority doesn't change because of circumstances.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[topdocker 0]

chuckakers

Interesting - USPA will still issue licenses to 16 year old members jumping outside the U.S.

"For skydivers jumping outside of the U.S., USPA will issue licenses only to those 16 or older."

So would the minor then not be legal to jump in the U.S. at a DZ that would allow it, or would that minor fall under the exemption for licensed jumpers?

If they could jump under the exemption - as crazy as it sounds - a minor could get trained in some 3rd world backwards ass country and then jump in the U.S. without a problem.

This thing just keeps getting sillier.

My understanding was this amendment came the day after the vote was done. So the BOD says its a well thought-out and easy to implement plan, but they have already had to change it! Also, USPA did not consult their attorney, just the PIA attorney. Yay, listening to other people's attorneys!

While this will not effect most members, it shows how far down the "we will do anything to keep the gear manufacturers happy" trail the BOD has gone. It's been a slow march to this point, but they finally got a Board that will cave!

And many of these people would be considered "leaders!"

top

Jump more, post less!

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

it shows how far down the "we will do anything to keep the gear manufacturers happy" trail the BOD has gone

As one board member is now calling it, it's the USPIA.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[MakeItHappen 15]

Just want to point out that the BSR is waiverable by the FB.

This means that DZ kids could (I think) get a waiver to the rule.
I mean the FB grants waivers to sick kids on the Make-A-Wish type waivers... why not give a DZ kid the opportunity to jump?

And I think that if a DZO that wanted to let any 16 yo jump at any time, they could also apply for a waiver.
If they have a track record of lots of 16 yo jumping at their DZ without incident, I don't see why the FB would deny them a waiver.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[topdocker 0]

NWFlyer

Quote

it shows how far down the "we will do anything to keep the gear manufacturers happy" trail the BOD has gone

As one board member is now calling it, it's the USPIA.

The other part of this is that Group Member DZ's must now include gear manufacturers in their waiver, and incur the cost of changing that waiver. Unheard of any other industry....

So DZo's, call your attorneys and get out your checkbooks. And for the average Joe Jumper.... we know where that cost will eventually end up.

top

Jump more, post less!

[topdocker 0]

MakeItHappen

Just want to point out that the BSR is waiverable by the FB.

This means that DZ kids could (I think) get a waiver to the rule.
I mean the FB grants waivers to sick kids on the Make-A-Wish type waivers... why not give a DZ kid the opportunity to jump?

And I think that if a DZO that wanted to let any 16 yo jump at any time, they could also apply for a waiver.
If they have a track record of lots of 16 yo jumping at their DZ without incident, I don't see why the FB would deny them a waiver.

.

"Hey, Mr. DZO, my boy, PackerBob, wants to make a jump Saturday for his 16th birthday!"

"That's great! Write USPA, request they hear his case, find out when the next BOD meeting is, take a couple days off work, fly both of you to some overpriced hotel, get five minutes with the Board to plea your case, listen to the PIA attorney wail about his tales of woe and how every gear manufacturer is going to go out of business at any second because of PackerBob, then hope that some of the BOD members have some spine left to stand up to the PIA. Let me know how it works for you."

"Eff that, we will go to Mexico instead."

Great plan.

top

Jump more, post less!

[NWFlyer 2]

topdocker

"Hey, Mr. DZO, my boy, PackerBob, wants to make a jump Saturday for his 16th birthday!"

"That's great! Write USPA, request they hear his case, find out when the next BOD meeting is, take a couple days off work, fly both of you to some overpriced hotel, get five minutes with the Board to plea your case, listen to the PIA attorney wail about his tales of woe and how every gear manufacturer is going to go out of business at any second because of PackerBob, then hope that some of the BOD members have some spine left to stand up to the PIA. Let me know how it works for you."

"Eff that, we will go to Mexico instead."

Great plan.

top

Don't most of the "sick kid" waivers get approved by some subset of the BOD and then get "approved" by the full BOD retroactively?

Somehow I suspect the other "under 18" waivers won't be able to slide through that easily.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[fencebuster 7]

I don't know exactly how many US DZs and DZOs there are, but I am one of them (yeah, I know I could probably get out my Parachutist and my fingers and toes and count em). I would love to let 16 YOs jump, but I am a lawyer, and have been accused in the past of knowing what I am doing as a lawyer. Taking a 16 year old Tandem student on a jump, or a 16 year old solo student on a jump, for which their waiver would be legally a nullity in the event of an accident, is just plain stupid. You don't have to be a lawyer to know "stupid" from "not stupid." The new BSR will not affect me because i have been turning down 16 year old jumpers for 2 years. For those DZOs willing to accept that liability, good on ya, but one law suit, win or lose, will probably end your business as a going concern. You can win a case and be bankrupted by attorneys fees, coasts and bad publicity. And in doing so, it will damage the rest of the sport's DZs.

Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures

[Doug_Davis 0]

MikeTJumps

There is nothing theoretical about Steve Snyder's Enterprises being sued out of the civilian market, Relative Workshop, Strong Enterprises and Sun Path being sued and losing over a million dollars in judgments, SSK and Cypres being sued and being out several hundred thousand dollars for something they had no part in because a rigger failed to put the closing loop through the cutter.

You are welcome to write some big checks to those companies to cover their losses due to litigation both in the past and in the future if you feel strongly about it.

The only money they lost was due to possibly increased insurance rates. If they didnt have liability insurance and had to pay out of pocket then they are idiots.

dzswoop717

If a kid drowns while taking scuba diving lessons, every one including the manufactures gets sued. If an adult drowns while taking scuba diving lessons, everyone including the manufactures gets sued. What is the difference. It is a sue happy world, if you are afraid of the risk involved get out of the business.
If a 15 year old kid sneaks his dad's old rig out of the closet, climbs a local antenna, and leaps to his death. The manufacturer of the equipment can still be sued. You can't stop people from slapping a lawsuit against you.

^ This!
There is NO SUCH THING as protection from a lawsuit. Not even waivers, not even with adults over 18. They can still retain an attorney and they can still haul you into court. While the potential for damages is significantly reduced in that case, you are still out the attorney's fees.

[chuckakers 370]

fencebuster

I don't know exactly how many US DZs and DZOs there are, but I am one of them (yeah, I know I could probably get out my Parachutist and my fingers and toes and count em). I would love to let 16 YOs jump, but I am a lawyer, and have been accused in the past of knowing what I am doing as a lawyer. Taking a 16 year old Tandem student on a jump, or a 16 year old solo student on a jump, for which their waiver would be legally a nullity in the event of an accident, is just plain stupid. You don't have to be a lawyer to know "stupid" from "not stupid." The new BSR will not affect me because i have been turning down 16 year old jumpers for 2 years. For those DZOs willing to accept that liability, good on ya, but one law suit, win or lose, will probably end your business as a going concern. You can win a case and be bankrupted by attorneys fees, coasts and bad publicity. And in doing so, it will damage the rest of the sport's DZs.

Without respect to any personal feelings I have on the issue (I operated a DZ and put my kids in the air at 16 but now don't have a dog in this hunt), the problem I see here is that an age restriction by USPA rather than by individual businesses is that it restricts ALL minors jumping, including those who are not a liability concern like family members.

The aviation standard for as long as I can remember has included minors. As mentioned before, a kid can get a license for a soaring aircraft (glider) at 14 years old, and can be a licensed pilot of powered birds at 17. As far as I know there has never been a widespread liability issue with that.

Since you are a lawyer and DZO, maybe you can enlighten us. Why is it so few flight schools have a problem teaching minors yet letting minors jump is a major liability problem? So many high-risk sports are ok with minors participating (hang gliding, motorcycle and car racing, the aforementioned flying, and so many more) what variable makes skydiving so different?

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[Doug_Davis 0]

chuckakers

Interesting - USPA will still issue licenses to 16 year old members jumping outside the U.S.

"For skydivers jumping outside of the U.S., USPA will issue licenses only to those 16 or older."

So would the minor then not be legal to jump in the U.S. at a DZ that would allow it, or would that minor fall under the exemption for licensed jumpers?

If they could jump under the exemption - as crazy as it sounds - a minor could get trained in some 3rd world backwards ass country and then jump in the U.S. without a problem.

This thing just keeps getting sillier.

Are you kidding me Chuck? They really passed that? OMG this is ridiculous.

Quote

Since you are a lawyer and DZO, maybe you can enlighten us. Why is it so few flight schools have a problem teaching minors yet letting minors jump is a major liability problem? So many high-risk sports are ok with minors participating (hang gliding, motorcycle and car racing, the aforementioned flying, and so many more) what variable makes skydiving so different?

Because some lawyer has convinced the BOD that waivers somehow have the magical power to prevent injured parties from filing lawsuits. They may provide a defense in the event of a suit, but you are still getting sued (with all the legal fees, bad press, investigations and such involved), and that's what they fail to understand.

Minors have been getting certified to scuba dive for years. I got certified at 15 nearly 30 years ago. Yet their industry seems to thrive.

Additionally, kids have been paddling Class 3 and above whitewater for years. I should know because I take students as young as 12 down whitewater rivers in kayaks every summer in my courses. My daughter isnt even two yet, and already has her own whitewater kayak. A gift from a close manufacturer friend of ours. They didnt make me sign a waiver. They make kayaks capable for class 5 (very advanced) whitewater for kids as young as 8.

You have to accept the fact that as a businessperson operating in an extreme sports market, that eventually you will get sued by someone for something if you stick around long enough. Make sure you have a good waiver, a good attorney and good liability insurance. If you cant accept that you should probably go do something else...maybe be an accountant.

[topdocker 0]

NWFlyer

***

"Hey, Mr. DZO, my boy, PackerBob, wants to make a jump Saturday for his 16th birthday!"

"That's great! Write USPA, request they hear his case, find out when the next BOD meeting is, take a couple days off work, fly both of you to some overpriced hotel, get five minutes with the Board to plea your case, listen to the PIA attorney wail about his tales of woe and how every gear manufacturer is going to go out of business at any second because of PackerBob, then hope that some of the BOD members have some spine left to stand up to the PIA. Let me know how it works for you."

"Eff that, we will go to Mexico instead."

Great plan.

top

Don't most of the "sick kid" waivers get approved by some subset of the BOD and then get "approved" by the full BOD retroactively?

Somehow I suspect the other "under 18" waivers won't be able to slide through that easily.

Yes, the Executive Committee makes a decision on the waiver and then lets the Full Board know about it at the next meeting. Then it is voted on by the Full Board. Not sure what would happen if it was voted down? Maybe the tandem instructor would lose his/her rating!

But I seriously doubt the Executive Committee is going to let some random 16-year old make a jump after the bitch fit the manufacturers have been pitching for years. The manufacturers would probably sue!

top

Jump more, post less!

[Boomerdog 0]

Quote

Minors have been getting certified to scuba dive for years. I got certified at 15 nearly 30 years ago. Yet their industry seems to thrive.

In I got my SCUBA certification 42 years ago. No, I don't possess the hubris to classify myself as a "SCUBA" god but I've put a hell of a lot of water through my sinuses and I hold advanced skill ratings in this sport. I've also seen the industry grow. The equipment has improved, the quality of training I question (another argument for another time and another place). I'll refer you to an article written by Dr. Larry "Harris" Taylor form the Univ.of Michigan; "Why I Don't Teach Kids." I encourage you to read Taylor's argument.

Comparison of SCUBA diving and Sky Diving has little if any in common. In the former, the depth of operating space is smaller and with a buddy, they are able to assist in an emergency. Skydiving of course has a much larger operating space, things happen "just a little faster" and no buddy...we're on our own in the event of a malfunction.

The skydiving industry is smaller with a smaller customer/community base. Roughly put, USPA licenses against the national population as a whole put the rough statistics as one skydiver in a group of 10,000 people or 0.1%. It should not therefore be ruled out that a lawsuit on a DZ out of state and on the other side of the country could have disastrous effects on the sport/industry as a whole. The DZ I jump at is a great place. Jumping and spending time there with my new friends is the height of my week. The DZO has set the age limit down in bedrock...18 and I don't get the sense that he's going to change it any time soon. My home DZ is less than 5 years old; the DZO has his heart, love of the sport and a considerable sum of money at risk. One lawsuit against him and chances are, he'll be more than out of business. Occasionally, a young lady, 16 years of age comes over to pack. She's a hell of a packer; she's taught me a few things and she exercises better common sense and judgement than some adults I know. She'll make a very good skydiver in a couple years and she's frustrated because she can't jump now. Well...her mother won't permit it and the DZO has politely refused...she's not 18 yet. Case closed, end of discussion.

You are free to train and introduce your daughter to all the high risk sports you wish. I'm a father and thoroughly respect parental rights and privileges.

With respect to USPA issuing licensing 16 yr olds outside the U.S. and some of the other inconsistencies cited, I'll defer to the UPSA to answer those questions.

Finally, I am admittedly very very new to the sport. What I enjoy is the ability of each of us to be responsible and safe for ourselves and others without outside interference. The sport is regulated by the FAA for obvious reasons but I believe that regulation is minimal. Others may disagree on this point, they can offer their argument. The USPA decision is not my preference. But remember this, we either take the steps to exercise and demonstrate good judgement and uncompromising safety habits ourselves or someone else will. Politicians and bureaucrats are an insidious species; two sides of the same coin exercising an aberrant behavior in constant possession of too many solutions looking for a problem...they consider it their job security. We can either take the steps to demonstrate that we can look after ourselves or they will. Of course, this may not stop politicians and bureaucrats but at least if the time comes, we can make a solid argument that we are responsible for ourselves.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Dr. Larry "Harris" Taylor from the Univ.of Michigan; "Why I Don't Teach Kids."

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lpt/kids.htm

Good Article & Presentation. Thank you for that.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[DrDom 0]

stratostar

Yea pretty fucking stupid that the FAA say's it's legal for your 14 yr old to solo a sail plane.... and or become licensed for that type/class... but you can't let um jump out for sport cuz USPA says so.

Totally legal for said 14 to go out and do aerobatics in that sail plane at 14, have the wing fall off, be forced to bail out and that is all cool with the FAA, in fact the FAA mandates he must wear said parachute.... so it's only cool to save yer ass, but don't you dare do that for fun!

I started @ 16 FYI.

There is a MUCH higher bar to entry for soloing a plane than jumping out of one. It took me some 16 hours behind the controls to solo a plane and someone had to be comfortable with you having ridden in the plane for extended times training you.

After my FJC (6-8 hours?) I was tossed out of a plane with two instructors who had never seen me in freefall, had some ability to control or dump me, and I had never operated a canopy except a few seconds on my tandem

The difference should be pretty obvious. For us, the learning curve is as steep, but you're left alone rather quickly after your ground school. No FAA regulated group would let you solo an airplane on your first flight, even with a radio strapped to your head.

Skydiving to model aviation would have to require so many "hours" (jumps? minutes?) of tandem instruction before a first jump. Could you imagine making 10 tandem jumps before your FJC and 2 instructor dive?

So we can not use the model of aviation completely for skydiving. But with that in mind, are there responsible 14 year olds? sure. Are there irresponsible 20-somethings? You bet. I think this was in response to the outcry from the fatality recently and much like everything in the US we response defensively instead of evidence based. It probably would have been more reasonable to make membership in the USPA 18+ but allow DZO's to train those under 18 and maybe not license them until their 18th birthday? Or if so inclined DIRECTLY mirror the FAA pilot requirements and use it as a "tried and true design".

So if USPA makes this statement could a non USPA DZ still train people?

I don't know what the right and wrong answer is. WE have a high risk sport, and there IS some liability for the DZ, instructor, and USPA in how they write the rules. We also combine that with a super litigious society.

Despite my insistence that aviation and skydiving are not entirely the same, I will say it always struck me as odd you could solo at 14, glider license at 16, PP at 17, but you can't even do a tandem until your 18th birthday.

My rant, your mileage may vary. I'm still new to jumping but not flying and as such, I'm just playing a bit of devil's advocate as well. As a pure libertarian I say "Parent's and DZO's decision" and leave it at that. But what do I know? I think the whole world should operate under the guise of "if you're not hurting anyone else..."

You are not the contents of your wallet.

[Southern_Man 0]

DrDom

So if USPA makes this statement could a non USPA DZ still train people?
"

Yes, but not with USPA rated instructors.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[fencebuster 7]

Chuck: I think the answer is that flight schools can get liability insurance for the risk of teaching minors to fly airplanes and sailplanes. There is no viable liability insurance for skydiving to manage the risk for adults, much less minors. In a lawsuit where an adult signed the waiver, at least the jury gets instructed on assumption of risk, contract law, etc. In the case of a minor, the jury would be instructed that a minor cannot effectively assume risk nor waive liability because they have not reached the legal age of majority. And without insurance to cover the loss, the business and owner are left to pay the judgment (as well as attorney's fees). I am licensed to practice law in DC and VA and my DZ is in VA, so I am speaking only of the effects of VA law. The law and jury instructions in other venues may be different, but nonetheless relevant to the discussion. As I said previously; this BSR does nothing to change my business.

Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures

[pchapman 261]

Southern_Man

Yes, but not with USPA rated instructors.

So, do USPA members make some sort of pledge to only conduct instruction according to USPA rules, where ever they are in the world? Does this apply to instruction only, not their personal jumps?

I would have hoped someone with USPA instructional ratings could go to a non USPA DZ, or elsewhere in the world, and ignore USPA rules if it isn't a jump intended to be under the USPA system.

After all, there are foreigners in other countries who have both USPA and their own countries' instructional ratings.

Any help is appreciated in understanding what restrictions there are on USPA members, license holders, and instructors to doing jumps under other systems.

[dzswoop717 5]

You bring up a good point. There are USPA members doing balloon and helicopter jumps from altitudes way lower than 2500', USPA's recommended opening altitude, wearing only a base rig with no reserve parachute (FAA violation). Do these people lose their membership? I would guess some of them are instructors, do they lose their ratings? Just go to you tube and see how many USPA and FAA rules are broken by these people. If they are not at a USPA affiliated DZ, is there no policing of these activities by USPA?

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Doug_Davis

***There is nothing theoretical about Steve Snyder's Enterprises being sued out of the civilian market, Relative Workshop, Strong Enterprises and Sun Path being sued and losing over a million dollars in judgments, SSK and Cypres being sued and being out several hundred thousand dollars for something they had no part in because a rigger failed to put the closing loop through the cutter.

You are welcome to write some big checks to those companies to cover their losses due to litigation both in the past and in the future if you feel strongly about it.

The only money they lost was due to possibly increased insurance rates. If they didnt have liability insurance and had to pay out of pocket then they are idiots.


Really? Idiots for not having insurance?

Care to tell me where you can get liability insurance for anything in skydiving?
There's "Trip and Fall" type liability for people on the DZ on the ground, but that's about it.
Do you know what UPT used to be called?

The "Uninsured Relative Workshop." That was the actual business name. Put there because they found out that you couldn't state in court that you had no insurance because it wasn't available. But you have to say the name of your company.

And:

pchapman

So, do USPA members make some sort of pledge to only conduct instruction according to USPA rules, where ever they are in the world? Does this apply to instruction only, not their personal jumps?

I would have hoped someone with USPA instructional ratings could go to a non USPA DZ, or elsewhere in the world, and ignore USPA rules if it isn't a jump intended to be under the USPA system.

After all, there are foreigners in other countries who have both USPA and their own countries' instructional ratings.

Any help is appreciated in understanding what restrictions there are on USPA members, license holders, and instructors to doing jumps under other systems.

I got a PM from someone on the BOD after my first post in this thread. Short version, USPA members agree to abide by the BSRs anywhere in the world.

So, the answer is yes.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[PhreeZone 15]

Quote

The only money they lost was due to possibly increased insurance rates. If they didnt have liability insurance and had to pay out of pocket then they are idiots

You are showing your newness to the sport here. UPT was until fairly recently known officially as The Uninsured Relative Workshop. My understanding is it helped to deflect lawsuits against them when they were a smaller company since potential plaintiffs realized right up front that there was no insurance money coming and they would get a limited settlement if any at all since there were no assets worth anything to claim.

It is not possible in a lot of cases for skydiving companies without military contracts to even be able to get or afford liability insurance since a single claim would bankrupt the company. Skydiving is still an industry where even the largest companies in the world do not employ more than 100 people for the entire company. Some of the medium size companies only employ 15-20 people and see margins of only a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year. Skydiving is very much a niche industry where without a military contract its a fight from year to year to stay open and well above water.

Also my understanding is that Strong had to declare bankruptcy in 2009 over the tandem student falling out of their harness since even if they had insurance it would not pay out at those claim rates and the settlement was worth more than their total assets were worth. http://www.chapter11blog.com/chapter11/2009/11/se-inc-dba-strong-enterprises-files-for-chapter-11.html S.E. Inc., doing business as Strong Enterprises, 11236 Satellite Blvd., Orlando. Filed: Nov. 16. Assets: $514,937. Liabilities: $1,445,517. Major creditors: Regions Bank, Birmingham, Ala., $998,285; Critchfield, Critchfield & Johnson Ltd., Wooster, Ohio, $113,512; Edward T. Strong, Orlando, $86,189. Creditors meeting: Not available.


Here is a note from Strong back in 2006 from a fatality that their rig was in use on and all they had did was sell the rig and they still owed money:

Quote

California jury awards $650,000 in wrongful death tandem parachute suit.

That was the headline of the Press Release that Strong Enterprises distributed on November 27th. If you are interested, we will send you a copy of the two page report. The bottom line is that SE was found 5% negligent in not controlling and supervising the Dual Hawk owner. That five percent translates into $25,000 plus additional expenses that bring the total to $63, 500. This lawsuit has cost Strong Enterprises over $300,000 in legal costs in addition to the judgment. How does this effect you? The Dual Hawk owner, Milt Burton has judgements of $668,670. against him. He has leans on everything he owns, he lost his planes, his parachutes, his ratings - his ability to work in the skydiving industry! His life has been seriously damaged

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com