0
JALUV2

pepperell tree landing being billed 10grand

Recommended Posts

They are billing him $10,000 for the rescue!
This is ridiculous, I wonder If they also bill people rescued in fires if a person was negligent and lit a candle, or the car accident victim that drove irresponsibly?


http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/26392053/detail.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

They are billing him $10,000 for the rescue!
This is ridiculous, I wonder If they also bill people rescued in fires if a person was negligent and lit a candle?
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/26392053/detail.html




Fire chiefs suggest those who enjoy risky recreation might want to buy supplementary insurance.

~I don't know, from a taxpayer's point of view it makes sense, the article states it took 21 guys 4 hours to complete the rescue...10 grand seems about right considering we paid 2500 for a 60 mile ambulance ride for my mom last year. :o:S



Guess he could have just called ole Uncle Bob with his chainsaw and hope for the best...but from the article the skydiver seemed happy with the technical aspects of the rescue.

Hate to be the hard guy here, but somebody has to compensate the rescue workers. A rather hefty bill for sure, those TOO are the risks we take when we fuck up.

This incident tied up 21 guys and their equipment for 1/2 a day...somebody gets that tab, do you honestly think it should be the municipality where it occurred?

If in fact that were the case what would be your retort to them wanting to have the DZ closed down after a few such incidents, citing the unnecessary cost burden of operation to the local general public?

How about considering all those guys were unavailable to assist in another possible critical rescue in which the person was not responsible for their own predicament?




Skydiving is an expensive elective not a required course...if you're not ready to pay the band then don't dance.










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I work as a paramedic and appalled by the comment that the fire chief stated "I don't think it should be the residents of Dunstable. We didn't jump out of the plane. He did."

But the fire department is not billing for car accidents, fires, medicals etc. Because it is there job and get paid through government and taxpayers funds. They are being biased and naive towards a skydiver because they don't understand!

They should start billing everyone then because they could make that same argument for everyone else's irresponsible actions.

Oh and not to mention the cost is grossly overinflated!!! I wonder how many volunteers or people from the call dept. were there not getting paid or very minuscule amounts?

Very disappointing!

He did everything according to USPA safety regulations regarding tree landings (staying put) but I bet if he knew he was getting a bill for $10,000 he would have tried and climbed down. I know I sure and shit would have started climbing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm torn on this one, because in many ways I agree but I also think it is a slippery slope. I'd be outraged if they charged to put out a fire at a home or business. They are still having to use their time and equipment and resources.

So where do you draw the line between what government/public services charge for and what they don't charge for? When is it part of what the tax payers pay for them to do, and when is it a service they are going to bill you for?



Z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This incident tied up 21 guys and their equipment for 1/2 a day...somebody gets that tab, do you honestly think it should be the municipality where it occurred?

If in fact that were the case what would be your retort to them wanting to have the DZ closed down after a few such incidents, citing the unnecessary cost burden of operation to the local general public?



The municipality should most certainly pay for it. The government must take care (govern) of its citizens. Otherwise, what point is the government for?
I doubt the community there is without benefit from the business. "We tax people for absolutely no benefit to them and govern air! Muhahaha!"
Just my opinion.
take care,
space

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, all of those guys are more then likely on a salary. So there would be very little direct expense involved in this incident.

Second, it didn't take 19 people to get this guy out of a tree. It took maybe 4, 2 if they knew what the hell they were doing.


We had a guy do a down wind landing at one of the Mountain Boogies in 21 mph winds. Before it was over with there were 6 police cars, 2 fire trucks and 3 ambulances on the airport, not to mention the dozen or so first responders. How many ambulances do you really need to haul off a guy that is still in one piece? Should you be charged for the people just standing around making it look like a union job?

I've seen this happen before and it's a bad idea. If they are going to issue bills for services then they should not get a penny of taxes to support their services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm torn on this one, because in many ways I agree but I also think it is a slippery slope. I'd be outraged if they charged to put out a fire at a home or business. They are still having to use their time and equipment and resources.

So where do you draw the line between what government/public services charge for and what they don't charge for? When is it part of what the tax payers pay for them to do, and when is it a service they are going to bill you for?



Z



I think if you go outta yer way to put yourself in need of those services you should get taxed.

The boating community was outraged out west a while back after 'some' rescue events were billed...what it did was defray the cost to the non boating taxpayer as well as lower the number in such calls as people were less likely to push a possible bad situation.

Recreation is somewhat of a luxury, what...close all the homeless shelters so the rich kids can play safe? :ph34r:










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>This is ridiculous, I wonder If they also bill people rescued in fires if a
>person was negligent and lit a candle, or the car accident victim that drove
>irresponsibly?

Often they do, yes. They bill skiers, mountain climbers and cavers for rescues as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do see your point Airtwardo

but on the same token I have been to many of peoples residence because they are to obese to get themselves to the bathroom and call 911 for assistance and that is not billed it is called a "PUBLIC ASSIST"

We should send these people a bill for the 'ASSIST" I mean it only took the 2 cops that are required to respond, 4 fire fighters, 2 paramedics and I have been dispatched to these calls and have another call come in for someone in cardiac arrest and they need to dispatch a unit from another town.
I guess the fire chief could say "the people in town didn't eat like glutenous pigs, they did it to themselves.":P


NH charged this kid with a $25,000 bill for a rescue. This kid went off marked trails and was also quoted as being "irresponsible". Mt. washington even has signs that state that you will be billed for a rescue if you veer off the marked trails.
He managed to beat this and get the charges dropped!
[url] http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=10328847

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So where do you draw the line between what government/public services charge for and what they don't charge for? When is it part of what the tax payers pay for them to do, and when is it a service they are going to bill you for?



I think that if this goes to court, that would be the main issue examined. Is this arbitrary? Where do you set the line?

What about, for example, the motorcyclist who needs extra care and personnel to rescue and save him after an accident? (i.e., more than he'd probably need if he were in a car)? Motorcyclists make the choice to ride rather than drive. They're more likely to get injured in an accident than a car-rider is. Should this standard be used to apply to all motorcyclists, too?

By the way, I'd be curious how much money the DZ business and its customers pump into the local economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charging is a creeping trend. More and more municipalities are charging for some services. NYC announced a charge for vehicle extradition this year for example. Many forest fire services, including some federal, have charged for years if they deem negligence. We are all going to read more of this as budgets gets tighter and tighter.

The skydiving community needs to work to make the public see our accidents as just that. Comparable to a motorcycle accident and not a child lighting matches in the woods. The perception by municipalities that an accident in skydiving is a negligent act can be costly to us.

With that said, skydiving takes a lot of personal responsibility. I now see this as one more thing I must mitigate. Am I insured to cover a 10 grand rescue? If not, can I afford this? Is this added economic expense worth it to me? Is it fair to my family? I couple more things I need to factor into my hobby.
"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



I think if you go outta yer way to put yourself in need of those services you should get taxed.
:ph34r:



In a sense we are taxed. I buy gas, food and other taxed goods in the area around the drop zone I jump at. I provide money that is taxed to the drop zone, who pays tax on the property and business. So the DZ being there generates tax $$ in many different ways.

Also, I'm not sure I want a fire chief, or other government official deciding what constitutes an extra risk and how they will respond or if they will charge extra. I have family that work as fire investigators, and some of the stories of the just dumb things people do and end up burning down their homes make a tree landing look low risk and intelligent. Should those people be charged when the fire department comes out? If I wreck my car doing 10mph over do I get charged? 20mph over?

Who decides that? What is the threshold?

We are taxed for it, and their charter is to help people out....I don't think they should be in the business of trying to make money on it or decided what they deem as an acceptable reason for their services to be offered without extra penalty.

edit-typeO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My problem with this is that the next time this happens, no one is gonna call for help. They will just get the dude out of the tree on their own, then when someone dies because of this, then somehow that's the skydivers fault for not calling, then it turns into a shit storm.

I think that services like this should either be gratis or everyone should be charged. I can understand paying for "on standby" services where you have people on site because it's a more than standard risk event, but the day to day stuff, deal with it.

I can also understand requiring payment if assistance has to be called in above and beyond what the locals can provide. I.e. you have to call in a coast gaurd helicopter or something. That's understandable.
~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote



I think if you go outta yer way to put yourself in need of those services you should get taxed.
:ph34r:



In a sense we are taxed. I buy gas, food and other taxed goods in the area around the drop zone I jump at. I provide money that is taxed to the drop zone, who pays tax on the property and business. So the DZ being there generate tax $$ in many different ways.

Also, I'm not sure I want a fire chief, or other government official deciding what constitutes an extra risk and how they will respond or if they will charge extra. I have family that work as fire investigators, and some of the stories of the just dumb things people do and end up burning down their homes make a tree landing look low risk and intelligence. Should those people be charged when the fire department comes out? If I wreck my car doing 10mph over do I get charged? 20mph over?

Who decides that? What is the threshold?

We are taxed for it, and their charter is to help people out....I don't think they should be in the business of trying to make money on it or decided what the deem as an acceptable reason for their services to be offered without extra penalty.
Well Put!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>So where do you draw the line between what government/public
>services charge for and what they don't charge for?

It would definitely help to say that up front. "We charge for skiing/climing/skydiving/rafting rescues but not for car wrecks." That way people can make decisions beforehand on insurance, risks they want to take etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote



I think if you go outta yer way to put yourself in need of those services you should get taxed.
:ph34r:



In a sense we are taxed. I buy gas, food and other taxed goods in the area around the drop zone I jump at. I provide money that is taxed to the drop zone, who pays tax on the property and business. So the DZ being there generates tax $$ in many different ways.

Also, I'm not sure I want a fire chief, or other government official deciding what constitutes an extra risk and how they will respond or if they will charge extra. I have family that work as fire investigators, and some of the stories of the just dumb things people do and end up burning down their homes make a tree landing look low risk and intelligent. Should those people be charged when the fire department comes out? If I wreck my car doing 10mph over do I get charged? 20mph over?

Who decides that? What is the threshold?

We are taxed for it, and their charter is to help people out....I don't think they should be in the business of trying to make money on it or decided what they deem as an acceptable reason for their services to be offered without extra penalty.

edit-typeO



Yes we are all taxed...should we 'recreational users' of those emergency services levy the bill to those in our communities that don't 'choose' to put themselves in such situations?










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Often they do, yes. They bill skiers, mountain climbers and cavers for rescues as well.



In Washington state that is not always the case. A BASE jumper was stuck on a cliff over night this past summer, and it took 60 emergency personnel to rescue him. They tried to extricate him via helicopter, but when the proximity to the rock made that impossible, mountain rescue climbers took 4 hours to literally climb a vertical rock wall to get to him and then bring him down.

He didn't get billed for any of it. Not the helicopter's fuel. Not the rescuers' time.

Here is the position of Snohomish County Search and Rescue:

Quote

"We do not charge people," Snohomish County Search and Rescue Deputy Peter Teske said.

Teske says he doesn't want to discourage those who are lost from calling for help.

"People who get lost and need aid will not call 911 thinking about the financial issue and then become more lost or more injured."



http://www.mynorthwest.com/category/local_news_articles/20100804/Footing-the-bill-for-the-BASE-jumper-rescue/

It seems to me that if a rescue services organization run by local, state, or federal government wants to charge for services, then they should have to explicitly declare what is or is not "covered" by the tax payer before hand. Otherwise, especially in these economic times, the temptation to cherry pick opportunities to dump the burden become too great.

If the person was negligent then charge them with reckless endangerment or some kind of crime. Rescue services should not be a punitive device. Rescue services are in the business of saving lives. Leave the social engineering to the legislature that makes laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are some communities that are billing for some rescue/accident responses.

As both a jumper who has neede rescue from a tree half way up a ski hill where no truck could get to AND a member the City Council of Portage MI, a city of 45,000 where there used to be a DZ, I get to talk about both issues. I've ALSO been a volunteer first responder on an ambulance service. So I guess I get THREE sides.

We have billed commercial interprises that created extreme responses in terms of spills or crashes on the interstate that goes through our community. We do not routinely bill residients for emergency responses.

BUT, we also have cut several million dollars from the fund that pays for those folks over the last few years and reduced city staff by attrition by about 15%. Our revenues are going down and many communities around here are laying off police and fire personnel. Some are going bankrupt.

IF you want full service, free response you need to be willing to support it with sufficient/higher taxes.

Our community used to supply ambulance service but we got out of the business as too expensive. That was over 25 years ago. I honestly don't remember if we billed for that but I expect we only billed insurance. We now provide first resonder service to all medical calls and allow private ambulance services to provide higher care and transport. They are fee for service.

Regardless of whether the responders are on salary, per hour volunteers, non-paid volunteers, etc there is a cost in equipment, training, liability, inability to do other duites such as inspections, etc.

Our staff is putting together the budget for our next fiscal year starting in July. We don't think we will have to cut fire or police yet. But we are deferring some truck replacements etc. And have eliminated at least one asst. fire AND police chief recently.

Should ALL rescues be tax supported? Rock climbing, skydiving, hiking and mountineering? That's a decision for the entire community to decide. It's not a right to expect. We can only provide what we're given taxing authority to pay for, and what we decide to prioritize as a Council or community. You give me the money and I'm happy to supply the services.

Is THIS bill appropriate or the right amount? Maybe, depending on local circumstances. Or may be political in nature. BUT SOMEBODY IS PAYING FOR IT. Either the enitre tax base or the benificiaries. Oh by the way, I just remembered we DO bill drunk drivers. That falls under your irresponsibile driving. Is that okay?
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Yes we are all taxed...should we 'recreational users' of those emergency services levy the bill to those in our communities that don't 'choose' to put themselves in such situations?



I see your point, but still think that it is too slippery of a slope to go down. Who decides what a "too risky" of a situation is? Is it something obvious to a whuffo like skydiving? What about driving in the rain or ice (risky by all standards and causes way more accidents than "extreme" sports).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think there are some very relevant differences between putting out fires/responding to car accidents and rescuing this guy from the tree. Namely the issue of choice.


I guess you missed the reference to people being "Irresponsible" and being billed for it. i.e. leaving a candle going, smoking in bed or needing a rescue after crashing while driving like an idiot. They don't bill for these, why should they for a skydiver?
I don't even care or know if he was irresponsible, the fact is he landed in a tree, followed the guidelines, needed help and is getting billed for it. there are countless times when people need help and do not get billed for it! It only seems to happen if it is outside the normal parameters of what people think is necessary or warranted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the best things a drop zone can do is meet with the local fire department, police and ambulance folks.
Hold a safety day at your drop zone for them.
Discuss operations, communications, operating procedures in an emergency and skydiving related injuries.
It will go a long way in preventing being charged for a rescue.

This is a growing trend for many agencies, to charge. I spent 31 years on the fire department. We never charged a dime for technical rescues. We had a Cessna fly into high power lines on approach to the airport one time in 1986. The pilot and passenger were stuck in the plane, upside down, for hours. We had the power company, the airport crash rescue guys and half of our fire department's equipment there. If that happened today, we would charge them. It's a sad state of affairs for funding to run emergency agencies in this day and age.

The way the cities look at something like a skydiver in a tree is that it's not a normal day to day activity. Crash a car, rescued for free. House burns, put out for free. Stuck mountain climbing, pay to be rescued.

Years ago we had a chief that wouldn't let our paramedics respond to freeway calls, because he figured those people didn't pay city taxes.:S

City attorneys are always looking into the loopholes to get money for the city operating expenses. Some cities charge a "sign up fee" to have free paramedic care at your home if needed. Some cities are charging crazy "permit" fees to raise funds.

Some fire departments pay for "call outs" also. So if a rescue takes a long time with a lot of personnel, I can see why the chief wants to charge. I don't agree with that, but business is business.

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