Letter from the tandem manufactors over underage tandems

[piisfish 135]

700 in Switzerland

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[tonyhays 86]

Quote

I reckon a 1,000 jump minimum is a good start for any candidate

Agreed 100%!

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[guzman 0]

in France it's also 1000 jumps for tandem and 800 for AFF. And the FFP has also set the minimum age of 15 for beginning skydiving, for both tandem and AFF.

[cpoxon 0]

Strangely it is 800 for tandem and 1000 for AFF in the UK, and 16 years of age to start learning. A comparison of all countriewous/states requirements would be interesting

[piisfish 135]

repeat my question : would this also apply outside the US ?

If the answer is YES, I could only recommend to my fellow TM's in Switzerland NOT to purchase american tandem systems, as we do have a certain percentage of passengers under 18.

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[stratostar 5]

What are the rules in your country as to ratings to be held, in other words are you required to have a MFG's rating that could be revoked? If not then what can they really do to you?

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

[TomNoonan 1]

My response here is only my personal opinion/perspective of the events that led up this letter, I do not speak for any of the manufacturers.

I went to July 2010 board meeting with the intent of asking the BOD to vote on the age of majority question that is cited in the letter sent by Ted Strong. I had actually hoped to have the letter in my hand for that meeting, but it was still in draft form and review and not ready for distribution. Where did the letter come from? Since my departure from Strong Enterprises, I have stayed in contact with bot Ted and Bill Morrissey, and one day Bill and I were talking, and he asked something along the lines of "What is it going to take to get USPA to do the right thing and protect the manufacturers (who are all USPA members as individuals), and remove tandem jumping from this age 16 thing." My response was "put it in a letter, get Ted, Bill Booth and Nancy LaRvierre to sign it and I will put it in front of every other BOD member at the meeting and call it to a vote." That's pretty much where this letter came from.

Without the letter, I stood up at the July BOD meeting and told the BOD and the gallery that three USPA members in good standing, Ted Strong, Bill Booth and Nancy LaRivierre, are asking USPA to protect our sport and our industry by removing tandem from the "age 16" minimum and return it to age 18 or the age of legal majority, whichever is higher.

Why? The answer is that minors cannot sign waivers. Period. No parental consent will make it okay. If you take someone on a skydive that cannot legally sign a waiver in the US, then there is no waiver at all. You might as well save the paper, because it's worthless if they are under the age of majority. (Even if they are fine on the jump, they can still come back AFTER they are 18 and sue the DZ, the manufacturer, USPA, their parents and everyone involved for traumatizing them or something crazy like that). It's that serious.

So.........the arguement came up about minors riding BMX bikes are no different. WRONG
Honda and Kawasaki sell 100s of millions of dollars of products each year. They have legal teams that are full time employees, that's sole job is to fend off these frivolous product liability cases.

My hope for the next BOD meeting is that this issue is put before the board in a public forum and that every BOD members vote (Yay or nay) is recorded by name and published to the membership. This way, if the motion is defeated, and the price of a tandem system goes up to $30,000 a system to offset legal costs of hiring in house legal council, we will know exactly which BOD members put us (the membership) in that situation. When the list comes out, my bet would be the only BOD members that would vote to ignore the letter, would be BOD members that themselves take under age tandems already. They would be the ones already jeopardizing the system and the ones the letter is aimed at in the first place.

None of the tandem manufacturers want tandem instructors taking anyone on a tandem that cannot sign their own waiver. Period. This isn't a new conversation, it is simply one that has been largely ignored at certain levels. That is the reason the FAA was cc'd on the letter. Good idea. This way, if USPA or a DZ continues to ignore the manufacturer's regulation, then if/when that underage incident occurs, the manufacturer can go to the FAA and say "we did everything we possibly could to get them to adhere to our rule, including notifying you."

As for the question asked about outside the US? I cannot answer that as I don't speak for any of the manufacturers. What I see in the letter though, is that it's only addressed to US based contacts. Take that for what it is worth.

One last item to address, special cases like "Make a wish" requests? That's what waiver requests are for. I can't imagine a manufacturer refusing a Make A Wish request. But they should be individually approved by BOTH the manufacturers and USPA on a case by case basis. That helps protect everyone involved.

So.........I was debating even posting this, as I am sure it will cost me some votes out there for my ND bid, but I am essentially the catalyst for that letter. The issue was created by USPA years ago by ignoring the manufacturers. As the SE Regional Director, I simply brought the concerns of three of my constituents (Ted, Bill and Nancy) to the BOD and assisted them in finding a way to effectively communicate the seriousness of their concerns to the board. If I lose votes for my actions, I will have to live with that, but I know I did the right thing. The tandem industry brought more people in the sport and gave us more turbine aircraft at DZs across the US then ever thought possible. It is our responsibility to protect these people that keep our industry moving forward.

The tandem waiver is the only thing proven in a court of law to offer any form of protection to the manufacturers. That is all this is about.

Namaste,
Tom Noonan

www.everest-skydive.com

[davelepka 4]

Just to put the thought out there, but why do the manufacturers continue to play a role in the rating of instructors? If you removed that aspect of the situation, wouldn't the liability of the manufacturer end with the successful design and production of their product?

For example, I haven't seen any opposition (from the manufacturers) to allowing 16/17 year olds to jump via AFF or static line, and I have personally been involved with countless underage staic line jumps using Racer containers. Does Nancy object to that, or does she see the actions of the end user of the product none of her business (more or less)?

If the USPA wants to allow underage tandems, why not let them be the ones to solely certify the instructors, and remove the manufacturers from the sitution once the rig has been accepted by the customer (with the obvious exception of recalls, ADs, or other manufacturer related problems)?

[riggerrob 558]

"

Quote

Just to put the thought out there, but why do the manufacturers continue to play a role in the rating of instructors? If you removed that aspect of the situation, wouldn't the liability of the manufacturer end with the successful design and production of their product? ..........."

...............................................................

That is a long-running debate between the tandem manufacturers and USPA.
Ted Strong has always maintained that if he maintained tight control of who is rated to jup Strong tandem equipment, then he could minimize accidents.

RW took the other tack. Many years ago T.K.Donle (then Director of RW's Tandem Program) - said that administering TI ratings cost them $100,000 per year and they would cheerfully hand off the process to USPA.
USPA only went half-way, adding a minimalist TI rating, but refusing to get into the details of packing or handology.
Part of the handology problem is that Strong has one handle configuration, while all the other manufacturers share a different handle configuration. USPA will only be able to offer a COMPLETE TI rating after all the tandem manufacturers standardize handles.

Part of that problem is that so many TIs have been jumping "System B' for so long that they are too old to retrain!
Hah!
Hah!

Rob Warner
Vector TI since 1986
Racer TI since 1995
Strong Tandem Examiner

• Quote

[Para5-0 0]

One point of contention might be that if a TI is sued for whtever reason, the manufacturer would still hold some liability towards said instructor. The TI could in turn sue the manufacturer claiming they sold a product and failed to train them properly on its use and dangers.

[Hvance 0]

Quote

One point of contention might be that is a TI is sued for whtever reason, the manufacturer would still hold some liability towards said instructor. The TI could in turn sue the manufacturer claiming they sold a product and failed to train them properly on its use and dangers.

Right. I was about to post the same point. The manufacturers are the ones with the deeper pockets, so the threat of a lawsuit will be ever-present. And remember, even if they win, lawsuits are usually expensive and time-consuming. It's just not worth the risk for the relatively small number of potential customers under 18.

I wish Google Maps had an "Avoid Ghetto" routing option.

[goobersnuftda 0]

The #1 reason why major rules change is that there are always people who take them to the extreme and abuse them. I'm going off memory here so please correct me if I am wrong.

There was a Drop Zone in Florida called something like Cross Keys. The mother of the 3 year old child was the pilot, the father was the tandem master and their 3 year old was the tandem student in a make shift student harness. Skydiving Magazine did up an article with pictures about this and I was quite disturbed. What kind of person would risk a 3 year old that understands nothing about the risks involved just so mommy & daddy can be in the record books?

Not to be outdone buy common Darwinism, some equally deficient person in Europe took out their 18 month old baby as a tandem and took the record for youngest skydiver.

That got all the tandem manufacturers attention and this stupidness started to come to and end. So much easer to just say age of majority. It is always those people who take it too far that ph*ck it up for the rest of us.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi goober,

Quote

the father was the tandem master and their 3 year old was the tandem student

I do not recall the kid's age but he looked closer to 3 months than he did 3 years.

And you are so correct on the rest of your post.

JerryBaumchen

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Part of the handology problem is that Strong has one handle configuration, while all the other manufacturers share a different handle configuration. USPA will only be able to offer a COMPLETE TI rating after all the tandem manufacturers standardize handles.

I can't see this as being a barrier. Maybe 20 years ago when tandem was newer, you might have a point, but by now the entire system is fairly mature and there are good standards in place.

USPA has no problem training an instructor for SL, IAD, and AFF, so why then should have they have a problem training instructors for Strong, Sigma, or Racer? I see no reason a qualified jumper couldn't hold a USPA Sigma I/E rating, or Strong Course Director rating.

The fact is that this should be an easy shift as the systems are already in place at each manufacturer, and the USPA just needs to pick up the reigns.

As far as this issue goes, the USPA needs to shit or get off the pot. They cannot make decisions that effect the legal and financial well-being of the manufacturers on one hand, and then require them to keep their feet 'in the water' on the other hand by forcing them to be a part of the post-purchase use of their equipment.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

One point of contention might be that if a TI is sued for whtever reason, the manufacturer would still hold some liability towards said instructor. The TI could in turn sue the manufacturer claiming they sold a product and failed to train them properly on its use and dangers

I can't see how this is possible. If the product was deficient in either design or manufacture, and that deficiency lead to the injury, then yes, the manufacturer would be liable if they trained the instructor or not.

However, if they sold the rig outright, and the owner accepted the rig as complete and built to their satisfaction, and the instructor accepted the rig to their satisfaction such that they were willing to jump it, then the liability for a resulting injury is with the instructor, not the manufacturer.

For example, I go out and buy a Honda off road bike. I then take said bike to the track and jump it, resulting in a fall and broken bones, I cannot sue Honda for selling me a dirt bike. Now if I took that bike to the track, and before I got a chance to jump it the front axle snaps, releasing the front wheel and I go over the bars, resulting in broken bones, in that case I certainly could sue Honda.

To take that one step further, there reaches a point where the dirt bike becomes 'used' and you can no longer hold Honda responsible for its performance. If the manufacturers would get out of the business of assembling the rigs, it would shift the responsibility to the rigger for correct assembly and packing of the rig. It would reduce the manufacturers responsibility to that of correctly designing and manufacturing rigs, and they already have a pretty good handle on that. I can't recall the last incident where a rig was properly assembled and used, and the rig failed resulting in an incident, and if it did happen, then the manufacturer should hold some responsibility.

The activity of parachuting or motorcycling involves risk, and if you undertake either activity, you accept some responsibility for that risk. If there is an incident you can trace back to someone elses negligence, then you can hold them responsible, but in the absence of negligence, you only have yourself to blame for jumping out of a plane (or jumping a dirt bike).

[rdufokker 6]

Didn't Bill Booth's daughter do a tandem at 17? It seems she was a few days from 18, but in legaleze that's still 17.

also, couldn't the local prosecutor file an endangering a minor charge against the parent if something went wrong, or even if it didn't go wrong?

BS

Irony: "the History and Trivia section hijacked by the D.B. Cooper thread"

[goobersnuftda 0]

Quote

also, couldn't the local prosecutor file an endangering a minor charge against the parent if something went wrong, or even if it didn't go wrong?

Yes, oh yes they could. That case in Florida where the infant was strapped to daddy for the tandem, the county prosecutor's office was given a copy of SKYDIVING magazine. With everything in print and the photos to boot, it got peoples attention. It also made for the burden of proof a hard thing to deny.

You always hear the initial part of the news because the story is "newsworthy" but you never hear what the outcome was a month or two later. It doesn't surprise me though. People do dumb things all the time and have no mind about them at all that they proudly post their accomplishments on youtube. Had a case where I live last year where teens were illegally shooting ducks in the spring from their trucks and just leaving them scattered across the pond when they were done. Good old youtube video caught them.

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

I can't see how this is possible. If the product was deficient in either design or manufacture, and that deficiency lead to the injury, then yes, the manufacturer would be liable if they trained the instructor or not.

A product doesn't actually have to be deficient in design or mfg, the plaintiff just has to claim that it is, and be willing to pay a little to an expert witness for hire that will write a bullshit report. Some of the issue comes down to an assertion that a product could have been designed better (even when it met industry or legally binding standards).

I saw that happen all the time when I worked for a nationally known product liability consulting firm (Exponent, it was called Failure Analysis Associates when I worked for them). Most of the time the plaintiff's claims were crap, but it cost a LOT of money to get credible engineering experts to defend such suits. We worked on cases for most of the motorcycle and auto mfgs and many other industries. Even when the case was crap, they would usually settle, just for more or less depending on what our investigation uncovered. Oh, the stories I could tell...

Quote

For example, I go out and buy a Honda off road bike. I then take said bike to the track and jump it, resulting in a fall and broken bones, I cannot sue Honda for selling me a dirt bike.

On what basis do you make that conclusion?

I agree that they shouldn't be able to sue, but you gotta know they can.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I agree that they shouldn't be able to sue, but you gotta know they can.

I knew after I posted it that I oversimplified that, and should have worded it differently.

I'm aware that anyone can sue anytime for any reason they see fit. My assertion is that if the manufacturers take themselves out of the instructor certification business, they take themselves out of being in any way connected to the performance of said instructors.

When you take on the responsibility of training and rating (and renewing) instructors, you're saying that each instructor is properly trained and qualifed to use your product in the way you design it. If that use should result in an injury or death, the connection an ambulance-chaser can make is that you produced a death machine, and certified an executioner to use it.

If you remove yourself from any of the post-purchase use of your product, you can no longer be held responsible for its use or mis-use. For example, if I take a chainsaw and use it to cut down trees on your property, or kill a family of four, nobody is going to sue Husquvarna because they produced the chainsaw. They built it and shipped it, and then called it a day.

The tandem manufacturers would reduce their liability to the same risk they assume when producing a sport rig. They are responsible for designing a functional rig, and then building it in accordance with the TSO and to the standards of modern rig manufacturing. Maybe you could look at it as they take on additional responsibility becasue two people are at risk for every jump on a tandem rig, but some of that is mitigated by the fact that one of them is a rated professional (I'm not suggesting nobody should certify instructors, just not the manufacturer). In the case of a sport rig, for all they know the rig could be going to 'that guy' who had 16 re-jumps during AFF and has no business jumping. 'That guy' is an accident waiting to happen, but the manufacturers have no concern about that because that have no hand in who jumps a sport rig.

I know that Cessna has no hand in certifying flight students, meanwhile the 150/152 and 172 have a bigger market share of the flight training market than any of the tandem manufacturers have in their market. The majority of flight schools have a couple of those airplanes on the flight line, but Cessna is in no way involved in rating CFIs.

Is anyone here familiar with how it works in paragliding or hang gliding? Both of those industries produce tandem models for the purposes of training (or offering rides) and I'm 99% sure you need a specific rating to fly either of those. What I don't know is who provides those ratings, is it the manufacturer or some sort of national organization?

[Para5-0 0]

I read your entire post but truly feel it is not as simple as the manufacturer bowing out and being in the free and clear. Or if USPA takes over the instructor ratings completely, uspa will most definately be named in any tandem incident resulting in law suit moving forward.
Example: Harness is put on incorrectly, student falls out resulting in death. Student sues, TI, USPA, Manufacturer of equipment, and Dropzone, in the attempt to find money. The Tandem Instructor says, "I was never trained in the proper methods to put a harness on". In a court of law, who has the ultimate responsibility to show an Instructor how to use a product? The product manufacturer? USPA? DZO?, S&TA? I live in New Jersey (A liberal sue happy state) and I guarantee, no matter what the manufacturer does they will be dragged into litigation.
With that said, in a perfect world I wish USPA could take it completely over and relieve the manufacturer of all culpability, I just do not see an easy solution.

I do like your Cessna comparison though. They do sell a product that is highly technical to use and could potentially kill people if used improperly or by someone not trained to do so.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Harness is put on incorrectly, student falls out resulting in death. Student sues

Ok, the students family (or long estranged brother after being solicited by a scumbag lawyer) sues, becasue of course, the student is dead.

However, if you look at the way I cut your quote, it could now apply to a solo student (AFF or SL) and not just a tandem. So a student falls out of a single harness rig on an AFF jump, and their family sues everyone in sight. The manufacturer, of course, will refernce the riggers report sating that the harness in question was properly designed and built, and incorrectly used by the student/instructor, and that it was out of the manufacturers control at the time the errors were made.

I never said that not certifying instructors would put manufacturers free and clear of ever being sued, just that it would put their liability on par with what they incur when producing sport rigs, which they seem to have accepted. You don't see them certifying jumpers to use their sport rigs, they build rigs and ship rigs, end of story.

The safest way , legally speaking, is for nobody to be certifying or traingin instructors. Once you step forward as a business or organization and deem an individual as 'competent and safe' to do tandems, that becomes looked as a type of guarantee fo their performace, and that it will not result in an injury or death. Of course not having a formal rating system in place puts 100% of the liability on the DZ, who in essence is 'rating' an instructor as safe by virtue of putting them forward to do the work. I've done (a long time ago) AFF jumps without a rating, but only after the DZO gave me his 'blessing' and deemed me capable of doing the work.

The real problem here is the liability in general. It exists and if you're going to have more than one entity in the ring, all of them have to agree on the terms. The USPA cannot expect the manufacturers to keep their hat in the ring, and then make decisions without their consent. If a proposed rule isn't unanimously approved by all interested parties, then that rule cannot stand, it's that simple.

Especailly in this case, where the manufacturers are the only ones without a say. The USPA can make the rule, and agree to accpet the increased liability. Instructors, DZOs and pilots have a say in that none of them need to actaully engage in taking underage tandems, and therefore avoid the liability. The manufacturers, on the other hand, have no control over what the end users do with their product, but by virue of rating instructors, they remain attached to the liability of those actions. In the past, they had the power to revoke ratings, and the USPA on their side, helping to keep the instructors 'in check' and following the rules. Once the USPA jumps ship, and starts to work against the manufacturers, it becomes that much more likely that the instructors will follow suit.

As previously mentioned in this thread, it's only matter of time before Ted, Nancy, and Bill just give up on civilian tandems. Just look at what the military contracts have done for all of the manufacturers and their delivery time. I see no reason that they wouldn't enjoy the deep pockets and bulk orders of the military for their tandem business as well.

[PhreeZone 14]

Cessna is sued all the time though. They have been sued because the pilot ran the plane out of fuel and crashed and died. Family claimed there were better methods of warning the pilot about the low fuel level than what Cessna used to win their case. Aviation tort is a major issue and is something that is being talked about at multiple levels of government interaction.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Didn't Bill Booth's daughter do a tandem at 17? It seems she was a few days from 18, but in legaleze that's still 17.

also, couldn't the local prosecutor file an endangering a minor charge against the parent if something went wrong, or even if it didn't go wrong?

BS

Then Hold the Parent "Only" responcible...I have no problem with that, I'd never allow my son to jump with someone that I didn;t have full faith in...Why the fuck have waivors, if the signer is not held responcible?

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Cessna is sued all the time though

Right. Anyone can be sued anytime for anything, however if the manufacturers halt their invovlement in post-purcahse use of the system, then they would limit their liability to the same level they incur producing sport rigs. They don't require a manufacturers rating to jump a sport rig, they build it, ship it, and move on.

If a sport jumper goes in, and the manufacturer gets sued, they'll inspect the rig (or the report by the rigger) and determine if the rig was the casue of the accident. If it wasn't they simply say, 'The rig worked, we're not sure who the jumper was, where they were trained, or what they were doing. Sorry for your loss', and then go back to building rigs.

As of now they are building rigs and rating instructors, so they assume responsibilty for the performance of the rig and the instructor. Between those two things, you'll find the casue of most accidents, and why the waivers are so important to the manufacturers. Without them they would be on the hook for the cause of most tandem accidents, and probably lose any resulting lawsuits.

So if the USPA allows underage tandems, and a factory rated instructor on a factory built rig kills a minor, you can bet that the manufacturer will be a prime target.

So if the manufacturer stops being responsible for rating instructors, they can stop being responsible for the actions of those instructors. They may have to briefly defend themselves against a frivilous lawsuit, but that's a risk they take just by being in business.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Cessna is sued all the time though

Right. Anyone can be sued anytime for anything, however if the manufacturers halt their invovlement in post-purcahse use of the system, then they would limit their liability to the same level they incur producing sport rigs. They don't require a manufacturers rating to jump a sport rig, they build it, ship it, and move on.

If a sport jumper goes in, and the manufacturer gets sued, they'll inspect the rig (or the report by the rigger) and determine if the rig was the casue of the accident. If it wasn't they simply say, 'The rig worked, we're not sure who the jumper was, where they were trained, or what they were doing. Sorry for your loss', and then go back to building rigs.

As of now they are building rigs and rating instructors, so they assume responsibilty for the performance of the rig and the instructor. Between those two things, you'll find the casue of most accidents, and why the waivers are so important to the manufacturers. Without them they would be on the hook for the cause of most tandem accidents, and probably lose any resulting lawsuits.

So if the USPA allows underage tandems, and a factory rated instructor on a factory built rig kills a minor, you can bet that the manufacturer will be a prime target.

So if the manufacturer stops being responsible for rating instructors, they can stop being responsible for the actions of those instructors. They may have to briefly defend themselves against a frivilous lawsuit, but that's a risk they take just by being in business.

Spot on.
At this point, they either get it, or they don't.