Letter from the tandem manufactors over underage tandems

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I was living on my own shortly after turning 17.

Me, too. Made my first jump a few days after my 18th.

[fasted3 0]

Mine was a few days before my 56th Better late than never
Merry Christmas to you and all!

But what do I know?

[peek 20]

Quote

And as I keep saying over and over, in a sport like that [Skyrider was talking about free riding], a serious accident might very well kill the participant... or it might not. But in skydiving, you are dead the moment you leave the plane unless you get enough parachute over your head before impact. If you go in with nothing out, or have a catastrophic high-speed double malfunction of your gear, you're dead. Period. Hardly any activity other than parachute jumping has quite the same inherent risk of death.

(And in a previous post you wrote:) What part of "skydiving has an enhanced risk of death unlike just about any other activity" do you people not understand?

May I use your words to take this discussion into a slightly different direction?

I think most people understand what you are saying. "Skydiving is different." But what makes it that way? That is what I would like to discuss.

1. Are we sure that there is no other sport/activity that has the same/similar inherent dangers? That the participant must do something specific in order to not die? (I admit I'm having a difficult time thinking of any.)

We know that there a numerous activities that require properly functioning equipment (and for the entire length of the activity).

2. Is skydiving different because the equipment is to some degree untested until the time that it must save your life?

3. Is skydiving different because parachutes are not thought to be reliable enough to wait until they are needed before being tested/deployed?

4. Properly maintained and packed parachutes are extremely reliable. And then of course we usually use a backup parachute. Isn't a system made up of these items as reliable as the equipment that must properly function for the entire length of the activity?

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

(I admit I'm having a difficult time thinking of any.)

free climbing

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

May I use your words to take this discussion into a slightly different direction?

I think most people understand what you are saying. "Skydiving is different." But what makes it that way? That is what I would like to discuss.

1. Are we sure that there is no other sport/activity that has the same/similar inherent dangers? That the participant must do something specific in order to not die? (I admit I'm having a difficult time thinking of any.)

We know that there a numerous activities that require properly functioning equipment (and for the entire length of the activity).

2. Is skydiving different because the equipment is to some degree untested until the time that it must save your life?

3. Is skydiving different because parachutes are not thought to be reliable enough to wait until they are needed before being tested/deployed?

4. Properly maintained and packed parachutes are extremely reliable. And then of course we usually use a backup parachute. Isn't a system made up of these items as reliable as the equipment that must properly function for the entire length of the activity?

I think it's mostly #1. While modern equipment is very reliable, I can't think of any other activity where a faliure (of either the equipment or operator) is just about guaranteed to cause death.

For example, if your gear fails while:

SCUBA diving, you should have a dive partner you can buddy breathe with.

Freeriding (bicycle, like skyrider's kid) you will probably survive the crash, unless you are in a very precarious position.

Motorcycle racing has crashes on a very regular basis, very few are fatal.

Also, there isn't any way to "partway" skydive. You are going to be going full terminal velocity if you freefall out of the plane. And a freefall impact will be fatal.

You can learn to SCUBA in a pool, where if the gear fails, you can simply go to the surface without it.

Motorcycles can be ridden slowly, as can skis.

Jumps on a motorcycle or bicycle can start small, and go higher and longer as skill increases.

ALSO - There is the very basic fact that skydiving is uninsurable. Oddly enough, I think that the insurance companies could make money on skydiving insurance (Liability for the DZ), based on the very small number of accidents (although the payout on any of them would be huge). I'm not an actuary, and I'm actually kind of glad that the cost of jumping doesn't include an insurance premium. I don't want to even think about how much a jump ticket would cost then.

That lack of insurance in and of itself makes skydiving very different from just about every other commercial recreational activity. I made a post in the "17 Year Old Turns In At Start" thread about how insurance companies act as a "cushion" between the plaintiffs and defendants in a lawsuit (post 101).

Can you name another activity where one of the major manufacturers has the word "Uninsured" in it's name?

Edit to add: Riggerpaul noted freeclimbing. I agree that while a fall from enough height would be fatal, you can freeclimb 5-10 feet up, going horizontal across a face. A simple PLF will save you if you aren't very high up.

"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

[BMFin 0]

I think there are a lot of sports that are more dangerous than tandem skydiving. I think on this topic many people fall into the same fallacy that happens with airtravel for example. Most people seem to think that travelling in an airplane is more dangerous than driving a car (which we know is not true). Flying in general is just considered so unnatural.

Let's not fall into the same fallacy here..

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I think there are a lot of sports that are more dangerous than tandem skydiving.

This is getting silly. This isn't a Philosophy 101 class. You're confusing probabilities with inherent risk. The inherent risk of jumping from an otherwise non-survivable altitude with a closed parachute (or even two! or even three!) that must deploy and open in order to survive the jump, but which has less than a 100% chance of deploying and/or opening, is obvious and intuitive.

I'm sure someone is ready with a rebuttal; but if we're going to discuss semantics or metaphysics, let's start a thread in Bonfire. I really haven't the patience to keep re-phrasing and re-explaining the obvious.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Re: jumping a 10-year old: I feel there is no way anyone that young could truly make an adequate risk-versus-reward assessment of the enhanced risk of death inherent in skydiving. Personally, I think jumping a 10 year old is criminal child endangerment, in any country.

Is that because you wish your laws to be imposed on everyone?

For fucks sake, we have our own laws and the further away from the fucked up laws of the US we can stay, the better.

Mind your own business.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

I'm curious...what could USPA do to remove manufacturers from exposure to the lawsuits?

As far as I can tell right now...nothing.

It has been said before by others and is reasonably straight forward.

As long as the manufacturers play a role in the licensing and issuing if tandem ratings then they are exposed to lawsuits from the victims of neglegence from US tandem masters.

If they handed the regulations and licensing over to the USPA completely (something the USPA seem reluctant to take on [cop out, pussies]), then the manufacturers would only be responsable for the performance of the system itself, not the nitwit that decides he is too lazy to do the harness up properly.

There are others much more clued up on this than me, and I have seen this discussed before. That manufacturers rating needs to go...

and the USPA need to become the full blown licensing body that they make themselves out to be.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[DSE 3]

Quote

As long as the manufacturers play a role in the licensing and issuing if tandem ratings then they are exposed to lawsuits from the victims of neglegence from US tandem masters.
.

You're saying that tandem equipment manufacturers aren't exposed to lawsuits when NZ tandem masters are negligent?

[rhys 0]

Quote

You're saying that tandem equipment manufacturers aren't exposed to lawsuits when NZ tandem masters are negligent?

I'm saying the manufacturers are removed from repsponsability of the conduct of tandem masters if the said manufacturer plays no part in the licensing and authentication of instructors.

Regardless of what country they come from.

A mistake from the instructor could be the fault of the training, that puts the manufacturers at risk in the USA right now.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[peek 20]

Quote

The inherent risk of jumping ... is obvious and intuitive.

Andy, I was hoping to take this beyond the obvious and intuitive. I'm trying to discuss what makes skydiving "different" from other activities that are dangerous.

To all:

Is skydiving the only sport with "inherent" risks? I looked up the definition of "inherent risk" and found one that says, "a risk that cannot be managed".

If some of us are confusing "probability" with "inherent risk" then perhaps we could agree that with the proper precautions, we can reduce the probability of a skydiving accident to such a low number that it can in effect remove the inherent risk.

Perhaps we are philosophizing a great deal about this. It's just that I would like to think that with enough precautions, that I can "manage" a risk, inherent or otherwise. Am I being naive?

Personally, I have just always had a difficult time believing that skydiving is all that different than other risky activities if all of the available precautions are used.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

You're saying that tandem equipment manufacturers aren't exposed to lawsuits when NZ tandem masters are negligent?

I'm saying the manufacturers are removed from repsponsability of the conduct of tandem masters if the said manufacturer plays no part in the licensing and authentication of instructors.

Regardless of what country they come from.

A mistake from the instructor could be the fault of the training, that puts the manufacturers at risk in the USA right now.

Are you saying that tandem equipment manufacturers are not exposed to lawsuits when NZ tandem masters are negligent?
It's a simple question.

[stratostar 5]

Didn't you get the memo, they don't anything wrong over there, EVER.

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

[rhys 0]

Quote

Are you saying that tandem equipment manufacturers are not exposed to lawsuits when NZ tandem masters are negligent?
It's a simple question.

If law was that simple, lawyers would not make so much money.

Can you skip to the point?

Explain how the tandem manufacturers playing a part in the licensing and administration of instructors does not place more responsability on them in such a case.

That is the point you should be trying to get your head around.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

Didn't you get the memo, they don't anything wrong over there, EVER.

Quite the contrary, we do plenty wrong, but our egos arent so big that we are reluctant to admit it.

Another war anyone?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

To all:

Is skydiving the only sport with "inherent" risks? I looked up the definition of "inherent risk" and found one that says, "a risk that cannot be managed".

If some of us are confusing "probability" with "inherent risk" then perhaps we could agree that with the proper precautions, we can reduce the probability of a skydiving accident to such a low number that it can in effect remove the inherent risk.

Perhaps we are philosophizing a great deal about this. It's just that I would like to think that with enough precautions, that I can "manage" a risk, inherent or otherwise. Am I being naive?

Personally, I have just always had a difficult time believing that skydiving is all that different than other risky activities if all of the available precautions are used.

I guess you'd have to define "manage".

Certain risks in this sport are not "managable". There are things I have no control over, things I have limited control over and things I can control.

I can manage some of those uncontrollable risks to a certain degree. I can jump at a DZ with qualified pilots and a proper maintenance program. I can refuse to jump with others who have unsafe equipment, or who are unsafe in freefall or under canopy.

I can sit on the ground in questionable weather (or stay in the plane if it changes on the way up)
I can choose equipment appropriate for my skill level, and choose not to attempt things I am not qualified to do (swooping is on top of that list).

I can mantain my equipment and make sure it is packed properly (I have a rigger ticket so I am responsible for my own reserve).

Despite all those precautions, I realize that each time I go out the door, it may well be the last thing I do.
Despite the reliablity of modern equipment, it isn't 100%. And even if it was, I'm liable to make a mistake.
And others might too, somthing I have zero control over.

And because this activity takes place well above the ground, any problems can easily and very quickly become fatal unless proper action is taken quickly enough.

Unfortunately, there are situations where the approprate action either can't be taken, or takes too much time to happen. Which is the "inherent risk".

I don't dwell on it, nor do I revel in it. But I also don't forget it.

"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

[DSE 3]

The point is twofold.
A-You suggest equipment manufacturers cannot be held liable in a tandem incident if they are not part of the rating process.
That's false.

B. Because of their exposure, like any manufacturer of any product, they must have the ability to do their best to limit liability, whether it's through licensing or not.

I'm trying to wrap my head around a few things in this thread, the largest of which does not involve why tandem manufacturers take an interest in who is training and using their equipment.

One more time in different words;
_Exactly _ how are tandem equipment manufacturers less liable in the event of a tandem master's negligence that causes or contributes to an incident?

[rhys 0]

Quote

A-You suggest equipment manufacturers cannot be held liable in a tandem incident if they are not part of the rating process.
That's false.

That is your interpretaion,

My point is that the manufacturers' liabilty would be significantly reduced, not eliminated altogether. Law, unfortunately, is not that clear cut and common sence does not necessarily prevail.

Quote

B. Because of their exposure, like any manufacturer of any product, they must have the ability to do their best to limit liability, whether it's through licensing or not.

Now you are confusing me, can you write that more consise and less ambiguous.

I can not relate or understand exactly what you are saying there.

Quote

I'm trying to wrap my head around a few things in this thread, the largest of which does not involve why tandem manufacturers take an interest in who is training and using their equipment.

Instead of hinting, would you care to share that point that you are having difficulty grasping, we are all here to learn right??

Quote

One more time in different words;
_Exactly _ how are tandem equipment manufacturers less liable in the event of a tandem master's negligence that causes or contributes to an incident?

Quite simply.

If they play no role in licensing the instructor, then their liability for the conduct of the instructors' conduct is significantly reduced.

The manufacturers liablity would then be calculated by the performance of their product. The training and therefore conduct of the instructors, would then be determined by the legislation in place for the training them (which would exclude the manufacturers).

There should be a rating from only one entity and that entity should be of the likes of the USPA, not the manufacturers.

Much like it is in most other places.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Para5-0 0]

Quote

The manufacturers liablity would then be calculated by the performance of their product. The training and therefore conduct of the instructors, would then be determined by the legislation in place for the training them (which would exclude the manufacturers

This is not true, unfortunately. The Manufacturer makes a product they have to show, teach, explain, how to use their product to someone (USPA Tandem I/E's). They are still on the hook for the incident.

Car manufacturers make cars, drivers are educated, tested, and licensed to drive the vehicle by the state. In a fatal, the car manufacturer will always be named because they produced the product that contributed to said death or injury..

[rhys 0]

Quote

This is not true, unfortunately. The Manufacturer makes a product they have to show, teach, explain, how to use their product to someone (USPA Tandem I/E's). They are still on the hook for the incident.

This is 'a' reason they will never be completely eliminated from the liability. But it is possible for them to have complete control over how that communication is conducted. That documentation from the manufactueres to the USPA (or similar) would be the only connection in that case, The USPA (or similar) would have determined that each instructor has met those requirements before issuing the rating.

Currently the manufacturers also issue that rating, as soon as they do that, they specify that they also agree requirments have been met by that specific individual and increase thier participation in the liabilty significantly. They then cross the boarder from the safety of their paperwork into the hands of the publics actions.

I understand your point, and agree with it. That hypothetical situation is much better than the current situation.

There would still be liability, there always will be some how. Nothing is that cut and dried.

Many things intend to be and are promoted as such however...

The less liabity for the manufacturers, the less costs passed on to the consumers/us.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[strop45 0]

Quote

You're saying that tandem equipment manufacturers aren't exposed to lawsuits when NZ tandem masters are negligent?

In general terms yes. Its very difficult to bring a lawsuit in New Zealand due to personal injury or death. To involve an equipment manufacturer you would need to gross negligence. To the best of knowledge, there has not been any such lawsuit involving any equipment manufacturer in the last 30 years, i.e. since universal ACC scheme was enacted.

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein

[rhys 0]

Quote

To the best of knowledge, there has not been any such lawsuit involving any equipment manufacturer in the last 30 years, i.e. since universal ACC scheme was enacted.

Shhhh, you'll start a heated discussion talking about that. I've been there....

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[azureriders 0]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think there are a lot of sports that are more dangerous than tandem skydiving.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is getting silly. This isn't a Philosophy 101 class. You're confusing probabilities with inherent risk. The inherent risk of jumping from an otherwise non-survivable altitude with a closed parachute (or even two! or even three!) that must deploy and open in order to survive the jump, but which has less than a 100% chance of deploying and/or opening, is obvious and intuitive.

I'm sure someone is ready with a rebuttal; but if we're going to discuss semantics or metaphysics, let's start a thread in Bonfire. I really haven't the patience to keep re-phrasing and re-explaining the obvious.

I am with you Andy on most points that you are trying to make, and I also think the point which people seem to be disagreeing with you on is some what irrelevant in terms of manufacture responsibility, however I do believe I am going to have to give you that rebuttal.

I have never considered skydiving to be the most dangerous sport that I have participated in. Nor does it always require the fasting thinking reactions to save my ass than some other things I have done. For sure not in terms of injury, and not even in terms of death.

I can say with some certainty, that Tandem skydiving is no more dangerous than bull riding, and yes I am most defiantly speaking in terms of inherent risk of death. I was bull riding at the early age of 14 with parental consent. Both with and with out adult supervision, at different times of course.

Bull riding is not the only activity in my past that I could use as an example here. I do realize your point I do agree with you over all. I still think that your beliefs that skydiving is the more dangerous in terms of inherent risk of death than anything else a minor can do, is a bit excessive. I understand that skydiving may be the most dangerous think YOU have ever done.

I do not have the references to back this up, but my high school coaching friend tells me that there are on average of two deaths per year in the US from heat exhaustion during high school foot ball practice. That is more than the average tandem skydiving fatality for the whole world of all ages. Just food for thought and even if this is off a bit I think my point still stands and I am sure we could think of other similar activities.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Re: jumping a 10-year old: I feel there is no way anyone that young could truly make an adequate risk-versus-reward assessment of the enhanced risk of death inherent in skydiving. Personally, I think jumping a 10 year old is criminal child endangerment, in any country.

Is that because you wish your laws to be imposed on everyone?

For fucks sake, we have our own laws and the further away from the fucked up laws of the US we can stay, the better.

Mind your own business.

I've made it crystal clear in this thread that I've been mainly referring not to legalities, but to the developmental maturity (or lack of it) of children, irrespective of legalities. For fuck's sake, improve your reading comprehension beyond that of a tantrum-throwing child. I'm terribly sorry that taking gullible young children out of the skydiving carnival ride mix might cut your income a bit. Tough shit. I'm sure you can always offset the loss by selling nanothermite futures.