Letter from the tandem manufactors over underage tandems

[djvelour 0]

Quote

Seeing with all the bullshit litigation, the manufacturers just have to have multipule companies and shuffle the plant and assets around so the legal action cannot effect their productionn.

It doesn't work that way and the fact that you think it does shows how little you understand (despite your claims) about the U.S. legal system.

Quote

When you ignore common sense and let stupidity and greed prevail, you end up with a good old clusterfuck.

Yeah like when your greed for tandem jumping dollars is so great that you ignore common sense and take a 10 year old up skydiving.

If you don't see any problems with underage skydiving, why not a 2-year old...or an infant? As long as the parent says it's alright it's apparently fine by you....

You seem to ignore that we are dealing with 2 different arguments here:

a) The tandem manufacturers are placed at substantial risk REGARDLESS of any licensing they may perform. The tandem manufacturers are the entities that facilitate tandem skydiving. Without the rig manufacturers it could not exist. With any product there is an assumed warranty. With products such as tandem rigs, scuba rigs, etc that warranty (for better or worse) can extend to the actions of those utilizing that gear (particularly for commercial purposes). The same thing exists with other entities in the skydiving world. For instance, a wingsuit manufacturer could be held liable for selling an advanced wingsuit to someone without any skydiving experience.

b) you apparently seem intent to ignore ANY possible moral questions WHATSOEVER regarding underage skydiving. What if that 10-year old had died tandeming? When any skydiver goes in it's bad...had a 10-year old gone it it would have been an utter tragedy. Those of us making this emotional plea cannot fathom your lack of concern for the well-being of the child. Do you honestly believe that the 10-year-old had a rational ability to accurately gauge the potential risks in skydiving and make a decision to jump nonetheless. No. It looked fun, his parents apparently said he could do it, so he did it.

Quote

Gee I feel fortunate to live in a relatively sane country, this shit is off the hook.

Insanity is throwing 10-year-old kids out of airplanes....I am glad my country IS sane.

In closing I would like to repeat a point that NOBODY has refuted...There is no reason a healthy child cannot wait a few years to skydive. End of story. Impatience kills.

[djvelour 0]

Quote

Flying in airliners, driving automobiles, mountain bikes, skateboards, canoes, motor boats, skis and any similar activity has certain uncertainties that can result in permanent injury or death. They have done and will continue to do so also, people will continue using them without thought as well.

First, almost all of the activities mentioned above have faced multiple lawsuits from minors who were injured during operation. In a court of law minors are treated very differently and as a result those defendants were placed at a greater disadvantage than if they were being tried for the injury of an adult.

Perhaps more importantly, the are two big differences between those activities and Tandem skydiving, which those benefiting from tandem jumping best be aware of or risk losing the right to tandem...

a) Skydiving entities have no insurance whatsoever. The manufacturer/operators of airliners/cars/boats etc all have very good insurers with even better lawyers. They can afford to settle the cases they deem un-winnable and litigate the hell out of the ones they think they can win. In contrast as there are only a few tandem rig manufacturers, none of which have insurance, a few lawsuits could effectively end the entire tandem industry. Perhaps if there are no lawsuits for a significant period of time then in time insurance companies will see the benefits of insuring tandem manufacturers. However, an instant way to lose a lawsuit (at least in the U.S.) is to injure a minor. There is no way for a minor or their representatives to waive their rights away, so if you so much as scratch that 10-year-old here in the U.S., he can sue you and the manufacturer. Would you want to be known as the TI that ended tandem jumping world wide?

b) Tandem jumping is a new sport. I once spoke to a park ranger about why BASE jumping with a permit wasn't legal but rock climbing without one was legal, and his response was...time. He said if rock climbing were evolving right now as a brand new sport the park service would likely be regulating the hell out of it and preventing it. The same goes for a lot of the activities which we currently enjoy. They are all "grandfathered" in. Tandem jumping is afforded no such luxury as it is relatively new in the pantheon of activities. In time tandem skydiving will be established and perhaps the boundaries will be expanded as the morays and values of our society evolve and change. However, as our society currently exists, tandem jumping is not receptive to underage jumping...as the manufacturers themselves have clearly stated.

-Sammy

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Well guys, I guess common sense has nothing to do with it.

So not much point in carrying on.

Seeing with all the bullshit litigation, the manufacturers just have to have multipule companies and shuffle the plant and assets around so the legal action cannot effect their productionn.

Gee I feel fortunate to live in a relatively sane country, this shit is off the hook.

When you ignore common sense and let stupidity and greed prevail, you end up with a good old clusterfuck.

So back to business;

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOklohomo where the wind come sweeping down the plains.....

Earlier in the thread there were value judgments being tossed about regarding the NZ system and standards, etc.

At that time, you protested loudly that your system was as valid as any, and that things can be done differently in different places.

But now, it is you tossing about the value judgments, ignoring that it is perfectly valid for the systems to be different.

Things are they way they are for reasons. The reasons in the USA are different from the reasons in NZ, and led to different systems.

Your system is no more or less sane than ours. Both have their strong points and weak points.

Without prejudice, let's all just agree that different places have different systems, and leave it at that.

Neither system is best. Neither is really better than the other. They are just different.

I won't claim that we do it right and you do it wrong. It would be nice if you would do the same.

[skypuppy 1]

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.

[skypuppy 1]

Maybe he means he believes that way is the best way.
His opinion is just as valid as yours, eh?

If you are spending all this time and energy trying to convince people to come around to your way of thinking, it's not gonna happen.

In this debate, isn't it enough to be happy with what you do as opposed to worrying so much about what others do?
_______________________________________________

I don't think Rhys is the one at odds with the rest of the world.

Seems underage jumping is no big deal in just about any country other than the US world-wide. It's common in Ontario, Canada and even more so in Quebec -- I've seen all sorts of pictures from Europe, South Africa, Australia, etc. and I know of Chinese and Russian athletes being trained while minors. It's been done in S America.

Even some of the very recognized USPA board members have family members that participate(d) regularly in the sport while minors (leading the interesting situations of people serving on the board of uspa while running non-affiliated dz's)

And I personally applaud that.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skyrider 0]

Who went down to 10 year olds, the manufactor's were saying 16...for a while, which I think is perfectly safe...

BUT, I am not the one with the legal burden...So it is not my call anyway!

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Well guys, I guess common sense has nothing to do with it.

When you ignore common sense and let stupidity and greed prevail, you end up with a good old clusterfuck.

You're right and I couldn't agree with you more.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[TomNoonan 1]

I've read through this entire thread and there have been a lot of interesting and valid points brought up.

At it's core though, the above letter and this issue here is simply about the tandem waiver, a legal contract. The tandem waiver signed by the participant is the best form of protection afforded to the equipment manufacturers, and unless the person signing it has the legal authority to do so, it cannot serve the sole purpose that it is intended to, to release the manufacturer of the equipment from the liability of it's use.

Removing manufacturer's from the rating process will not remove them or reduce their likelyhood of being named in a lawsuit. As long as their name appears on the equipment being used, they will be subject to liability and the potential of being named in a lawsuit. A legally binding tandem waiver (meaning signed by someone with the legal right to execute the contract) is the only really viable defense that is afforded the manufacturers in getting them dropped from the suit after being named in it. Precedence is out there, it works.

Here's a manufacturer liability example that is in the public realm already and bears on the topic:

Some time in the 1990s? There was a tandem incident where a Tandem Instructor rated on one system decided to take a girl on a tandem system manufactured by another company. He had no training on that system whatsoever, but jumped it anyways. It's reasonable to assume he knew of the rating requirement of the other system as he had gone through a rating process with another manufacturer, yet jumped this other gear anyways.

The girl gets killed on the jump and a lawsuit entails. The manufacturer of the tandem system was named in the lawsuit, despite having no part in the tandem instructors training and to the contrary could prove beyond a reason of a doubt the instructor was not endorsed to use that equipment.

None of that mattered in court, there was no waiver signed for the equipment being used, and the manufacturer paid for it DEARLY. Despite having done nothing wrong and playing no part in the jump.

Their name was on the equipment. That was all it took.

So......as I said at the start of my post, there have been alot of interesting and valid points brought up in this thread, but at the heart of this issue, it was and remains about the waiver.

The ability of a person making a tandem jump to be able to execute a legally binding contract that protects the people that manufacture the equipment.

(All of the above is my own person opinion, I don't speak on behalf of any of the manufacturers. Since the letter was only addressed to US based organizations and offices, I am only addressing this as a US based issue.)

Namaste,
Tom Noonan

www.everest-skydive.com

[rhys 0]

Quote

It doesn't work that way and the fact that you think it does shows how little you understand (despite your claims) about the U.S. legal system.

I have never claimed to understand the US legal system, what I do understand is common sense.

Tony and Pops pointed out clearly that common sense does not prevail in the US legal system, I am not used to that. I am used to common sense.

So my input to the conversation ends around here.

I'll leave you guys to your clusterfuck that you call freedom and liberty.

Quote

Yeah like when your greed for tandem jumping dollars is so great that you ignore common sense and take a 10 year old up skydiving.

Just like the greedy theme parks like disneyland, gee how dare they endanger all those innocent children that don't have a clue about physics and engineering...

Quote

If you don't see any problems with underage skydiving, why not a 2-year old...or an infant? As long as the parent says it's alright it's apparently fine by you....

As long as they fit the harness (that is the rules here), the 10 year old I took the other day was pretty close my limit.

Quote

a) The tandem manufacturers are placed at substantial risk REGARDLESS of any licensing they may perform. The tandem manufacturers are the entities that facilitate tandem skydiving. Without the rig manufacturers it could not exist. With any product there is an assumed warranty. With products such as tandem rigs, scuba rigs, etc that warranty (for better or worse) can extend to the actions of those utilizing that gear (particularly for commercial purposes). The same thing exists with other entities in the skydiving world. For instance, a wingsuit manufacturer could be held liable for selling an advanced wingsuit to someone without any skydiving experience.

I really do not want to debate about this anymore, but...

If a wingsuit manufacturer sells a wingsuit to an inexperinced jumper, there will still have to be a S&TA or some sort of supervision to allow the person to use the wingsuit.
If they do not go through a S&TA or have any sort of supervision then they are breaking the rules and will not have an argument. And the DZ in question is breaking the rules and deserved to be sued, simple.

That is how it work here in my country, that makes sense. It is common sense.

Blaming a manufacturer for improper use of a product when there are clearly rules in place to make sure all people using the product are deemed experienced enough and/or rated to do so, is not sensible.

But we have established that the US laws are not sensible, so....

I'll leave you to your clusterfuck you call freedom and liberty.

Quote

b) you apparently seem intent to ignore ANY possible moral questions WHATSOEVER regarding underage skydiving. What if that 10-year old had died tandeming? When any skydiver goes in it's bad...had a 10-year old gone it it would have been an utter tragedy. Those of us making this emotional plea cannot fathom your lack of concern for the well-being of the child. Do you honestly believe that the 10-year-old had a rational ability to accurately gauge the potential risks in skydiving and make a decision to jump nonetheless. No. It looked fun, his parents apparently said he could do it, so he did it.

When common sense and justice are removed from a society, that is a tragedy. When fear is installed instead of love, that is a tragedy. And when people are not allowed to do things thay would like to do and is within the law, that is a tragedy.

The parents wanted the child to jump, the child wanted to jump, the child had fun, the child recommended it to the rest of his family on video and wanted to go again...

Would you take a child on a roller coaster? Drive them on the freeway?

Dont get me wrong, a child dying is always a tragedy, but it is less of a trgedy if they were doing something they wanted to do and were killed by a mistake that could have happened to any person of any age.

What is more of a tragedy is a child being killed by a bullet.

There are plenty of childern being killed by bullets and bombs (among other things) on a daily basis with your tax money, and those are largely ignored, so dont come to me with your moral high ground.

I don't want to turn this into a political debate, but that is a very valid point, the conduct of the US legal system is increasingly criminal, yet you are trying to belittle me for following the rules that pertain to me and going about my business, just because 'you feel' I am braking some morals that you think are paramount.

Well think again buddy, you pay for the deaths of many children, that is a tragedy. Like it or not, it is the truth.

Shame on you.
I will stick to my common sense and leave you with your clusterfuck.

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

[rhys 0]

Quote

Here's a manufacturer liability example that is in the public realm already and bears on the topic:

Some time in the 1990s? There was a tandem incident where a Tandem Instructor rated on one system decided to take a girl on a tandem system manufactured by another company. He had no training on that system whatsoever, but jumped it anyways. It's reasonable to assume he knew of the rating requirement of the other system as he had gone through a rating process with another manufacturer, yet jumped this other gear anyways.

The girl gets killed on the jump and a lawsuit entails. The manufacturer of the tandem system was named in the lawsuit, despite having no part in the tandem instructors training and to the contrary could prove beyond a reason of a doubt the instructor was not endorsed to use that equipment.

None of that mattered in court, there was no waiver signed for the equipment being used, and the manufacturer paid for it DEARLY. Despite having done nothing wrong and playing no part in the jump.

gee, what an injustice.

I would pack up an move to a different country is i was a US based manufacturer, the liability in that case is just too much. It is just not reasonable to assume that nobody will ever make a mistake again. If that mistake can be blamed on the manufacturer even if it is not their fault then it is only reasonable to assume that it is only a matter of time before another lawsuit such as that is begun.

Good luck and peace everyone.

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

[rhys 0]

Quote

a) Skydiving entities have no insurance whatsoever. The manufacturer/operators of airliners/cars/boats etc all have very good insurers with even better lawyers. They can afford to settle the cases they deem un-winnable and litigate the hell out of the ones they think they can win.

I take it you are taling about the USA?

My skydiving company (here in NZ) has liabilty insurance, just paid the premium the other day.

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

[velvetjo 0]

Quote

Shame on you.
I will stick to my common sense and leave you with your clusterfuck.

Does that also mean that you'll be discontinuing use of all US-manufactured gear (including tandem systems), gear developed from US-innovated patents (including 3-ring releases), US developed aircraft (like C-185's), and the like? Does that mean that you're planning to ignore all of the experience you gained while working as a skydiver in the US and all of the training methods developed in the US? If so, you may need to make some significant operational changes to your fledgling DZ.

If not, you may not want to opt out of the cluster just yet. Like it or not, US laws (and even ethics) will continue to impact you if you continue to use these products.

We all have a lot to learn from each other, so why not relax and enjoy the process a little bit, eh? Best of luck with your DZ start-up, that's a pretty big undertaking for anyone.

Lance

[rhys 0]

Quote

Does that also mean that you'll be discontinuing use of all US-manufactured gear (including tandem systems), gear developed from US-innovated patents (including 3-ring releases), US developed aircraft (like C-185's), and the like? Does that mean that you're planning to ignore all of the experience you gained while working as a skydiver in the US and all of the training methods developed in the US? If so, you may need to make some significant operational changes to your fledgling DZ.

If not, you may not want to opt out of the cluster just yet. Like it or not, US laws (and even ethics) will continue to impact you if you continue to use these products.

This is not a one world government.... yet.

So we still have the luxury of different laws and regulations to the USA, at present.

I will play things by ear.

I am not quite sure where you were going with that. Are you saying you beleive I could be dragged through a litigation with the manufacturer from here in NZ, or are you saying that you think I am ignoring what I have learned and that is bad or unwise?

Quote

We all have a lot to learn from each other, so why not relax and enjoy the process a little bit, eh? Best of luck with your DZ start-up, that's a pretty big undertaking for anyone.

Lance

Thanks bro, I really appreciate that level of understanding, many people (including myself before) seriously underestimate the process.

Comlience is very important now, so I am thinking about all this. We are comlient with our health and safety regulations and complient with the part 149 we operate under, we are also complient with the law, and even our music is royalty free...

For now taking children skydiving is not against the rules here, so until that changes there is no need to change what we do.

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

[normiss 622]

Quote

For now taking children skydiving is not against the rules here, so until that changes there is no need to change what we do.

All it takes is one injury (or worse) that results in litigation. Parents get quite defensive of their children. More so when they are hurt by what could be perceived as someone else's negligence - real, implied, perceived, or otherwise.

[rhys 0]

Quote

All it takes is one injury (or worse) that results in litigation. Parents get quite defensive of their children. More so when they are hurt by what could be perceived as someone else's negligence - real, implied, perceived, or otherwise.
Unsure

If they sign the form, then unless there is neglegence, I am covered, if I was neglegent, maybe I deserve aq lawsuit...

whats the biggie.

No need to stop doing everything because of fear of something going wrong. Might as well stop doing everything with any risk then...

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

[djvelour 0]

[reply

If they sign the form, then unless there is neglegence, I am covered, if I was neglegent, maybe I deserve aq lawsuit...

whats the biggie.

No need to stop doing everything because of fear of something going wrong. Might as well stop doing everything with any risk then...

[skypuppy 1]

Without getting into a moral debate, look at how many skydivers seem to be reacting negatively to even the idea of a 10-year-old skydiving.
________________________________________________

Maybe you should change that to 'how many US skydivers seem to be reacting negatively', since, as I said before, minors skydiving seems to be pretty much accepted, at least unofficially, in pretty much the rest of the world outside the US...

You have a lot of strong feelings in this considering your experience level....

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[rhys 0]

Quote

In the U.S. a waiver signed by a minor is completely invalid. There is no circumstances whatsoever where a minor or his/her representatives can sign away his/her rights (unless they are legally emancipated in which case they are no longer technically a minor).

To clarify it is the parent or legal guardian that signs the waiver.

I understand clearly the situation in the united states now, it is sad but it is the reality.

If I was an operator in the US I would not take minors.

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