Letter from the tandem manufactors over underage tandems

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

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.

But I haven't been saying that that parachute jumping is the single most dangerous activity there is. I'm saying that jumping from an un-survivable altitude with a closed parachute carries with it a unique risk of death quite unlike just about anything else. And that, developmentally, children below a certain age simply to not yet have the developmental maturity to assess that risk for themselves. If you re-read my posts carefully, you'll see that that's my point. Sorry; but I'm not going to keep giving the longer version of this.

[skyrider 0]

Quote

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.

This Precarious enough?
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v400/onekick/Redbull%20Rampage/?action=view¤t=094.jpg

[rhys 0]

Quote

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.

Taking a 10 year old tandem skydiving is against the rules in your country, and you oppose anyonme doing that for that reason.

Taking A 10 year old skydiving in my country is perfectly legitemate, accepted and carried out reletivley often. You insinuated it was criminal because you think it should be...wtf.

You can oppose that all you like but to state;

Quote

Personally, I think jumping a 10 year old is criminal child endangerment, in any country.

Means you beleive your way is the only way. I am not going to go there, again.

Quote

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.

Ha ha the old 'twoofer' card. and a childish attempt to move the focus away from your flawed, irrelevant point to a common ground that you find with similar minded bigots.

Nice try.

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

[skyrider 0]

Taking a ten yearold for a drive in the city is dangerous, but peopel do it every day!

[azureriders 0]

Quote

But I haven't been saying that that parachute jumping is the single most dangerous there is. I'm saying that jumping from an un-survivable altitude with a closed parachute carries with it a unique risk of death quite unlike just about anything else. And that, developmentally, children below a certain age simply to not yet have the developmental maturity to assess that risk for themselves. If you re-read my posts carefully, you'll see that that's my point. Sorry; but I'm not going to keep giving the longer version of this.

No need going into the longer version for me, I do get it. I also understand that you were struggling to get some others to get it, if I caused a drift from that point I am sorry. I just felt you pushing the FACT of how dangerous skydiving is compared to most thngs a bit far.

As your post above reads, I could not agree more.

[rhys 0]

Quote

But I haven't been saying that that parachute jumping is the single most dangerous activity there is. I'm saying that jumping from an un-survivable altitude with a closed parachute carries with it a unique risk of death quite unlike just about anything else. And that, developmentally, children below a certain age simply to not yet have the developmental maturity to assess that risk for themselves. If you re-read my posts carefully, you'll see that that's my point.

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

Your kids can hang in a bubble wrapped in foam and anti bacterial sanitiser.

Then you can let the rest of us go about our business.

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

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

But I haven't been saying that that parachute jumping is the single most dangerous activity there is. I'm saying that jumping from an un-survivable altitude with a closed parachute carries with it a unique risk of death quite unlike just about anything else. And that, developmentally, children below a certain age simply to not yet have the developmental maturity to assess that risk for themselves. If you re-read my posts carefully, you'll see that that's my point.

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

Your kids can hang in a bubble wrapped in foam and anti bacterial sanitiser.

Then you can let the rest of us go about our business.

You're just pretending you miss the point to protect your commercial interest. Tough shit.

[rhys 0]

Quote

You're just pretending you miss the point to protect your commercial interest. Tough shit.

What point. how about you just tell me then.

Or do you prefer riddles to get your point accross?

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

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

You can oppose that all you like but to state;

Quote

Personally, I think jumping a 10 year old is criminal child endangerment, in any country.

Means you beleive your way is the only way. I am not going to go there, again.

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?

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

[riggerrob 558]

Agreed!
Rhys may quote New Zealand law all he likes, but the rest of us are stuck with Canadian or British or American law and we cannot change.
This argument is largely a waste of time.

[rhys 0]

Quote

This argument is largely a waste of time.

If I was not ever told sternly by others here that I am dangerous, criminal, stupid....

Then my personal argument would not exist.

There is a potential, relatively easy solution to the problem the US manufacturers have with the legal system, I was just pointing that out. Not sure if it pertains to you in Canada, I certainly imagine it does not pertain to those in Britan unless their parachuting legislation makes it so.

This is a US problem and greed and lack of common sence is largely to blame.

Sad but true.

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

[popsjumper 2]

Do I understand you to say manufacturers should take themselves out of the training game because that would help alleviate product liability suits?

If so, you're going to have to research U.S. product liability laws.

If one is in the U.S. or some other country, it doesn't matter what NZ does.

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

[rhys 0]

Quote

Do I understand you to say manufacturers should take themselves out of the training game because that would help alleviate product liability suits?

Bang on, It will not eliminate the chances but will make them significantly less likey.

What ois the point of haveing bith USPA and manufacturers ratings anyway, seems like nobody wants to have the responsability while taking the credit as the overseeing entity at the same time.

Nothin like a bit of clarity to clear up a ambiguous situation.

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

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Do I understand you to say manufacturers should take themselves out of the training game because that would help alleviate product liability suits?

Bang on, It will not eliminate the chances but will make them significantly less likey.

Personally, I don't think it would even make a dent in the the likelyhood, the quantities nor the results.

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

[rhys 0]

Quote

Personally, I don't think it would even make a dent in the the likelyhood, the quantities nor the results.

reasoning?

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

[tonyhays 86]

Quote

reasoning?

They have the deepest pockets(most likely)

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

[rhys 0]

Quote

They have the deepest pockets(most likely)

So if the manufacturers have a certain standard they specify is reached before one can use their gear, and they play no part in rating that person, and that person does something that is specifically against their specifications, then it would be difficult to pin it on the manufacturer...

right?

handing out a rating to everyone that gets a USPA rating, is admitting that they beleive that person has reached a appropriate level of understanding.

Without the factory rating, the manufacturer can just brush them of onto the I/E that rated them and say they didn't do a very good job.

It is not up to the manufacturers to make sure everybody is trained, that is the Job of the USPA (in america), the manufacturers job is to make sure the gear is well made and works properly.

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

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

They have the deepest pockets(most likely)

So if the manufacturers have a certain standard they specify is reached before one can use their gear, and they play no part in rating that person, and that person does something that is specifically against their specifications, then it would be difficult to pin it on the manufacturer...

right?

Regarding events in the USA -

Pilot certification is government controlled.

Aircraft manufacturers have been sued many many times when pilots have made mistakes.

So, being separate from the pilot certification did not help aircraft manufacturers.

Why should it be different for a tandem manufacturer?

I don't mean to say our situation is "right", only that it is the situation we have.

I would much rather have the sort of control on liability suits that you have in NZ, but that's just not what we have.

This isn't about "right" and "wrong". It is only about what really happens here.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Regarding events in the USA -

Pilot certification is government controlled.

Aircraft manufacturers have been sued many many times when pilots have made mistakes.

So, being separate from the pilot certification did not help aircraft manufacturers.

Could you honestly say that if the aircraft manufacturers played a role in licensing the pilots, that there would not have been many more lawsuits for the manufacturers?

I would be inclined to beleive that there would have been shitloads more.

Removing liability is not eliminating it altogether, it is reducing it.

My argument is that the liability would be significantly reduced, not eliminated.

Heck, there are alot of planes out there and we all know ther is no such thing as a perfecty good airplane. lol

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

[tonyhays 86]

People who sue don't only go for the guilty party, they go for everybody. It's called a blanket lawsuit. Probably in the hopes that the one with deep pockets will settle, since that could be cheaper than actually defending themselves.

Quote

So if the manufacturers have a certain standard they specify is reached before one can use their gear, and they play no part in rating that person, and that person does something that is specifically against their specifications, then it would be difficult to pin it on the manufacturer...

Ask Ted Strong about that. They did nothing wrong but still had to defend themselves in court, at great cost.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3541273;search_string=strong%20lawsuit;#3541273

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

[rhys 0]

Quote

Ask Ted Strong about that. They did nothing wrong but still had to defend themselves in court, at great cost.

You know that I know about that lawsuit, but Strong also handed that jumpmaster a rating, if they had not have, would that have potentially made outcome different?

that is more the point.

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

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

Regarding events in the USA -

Pilot certification is government controlled.

Aircraft manufacturers have been sued many many times when pilots have made mistakes.

So, being separate from the pilot certification did not help aircraft manufacturers.

Could you honestly say that if the aircraft manufacturers played a role in licensing the pilots, that there would not have been many more lawsuits for the manufacturers?

I would be inclined to beleive that there would have been shitloads more.

Removing liability is not eliminating it altogether, it is reducing it.

My argument is that the liability would be significantly reduced, not eliminated.

Heck, there are alot of planes out there and we all know ther is no such thing as a perfecty good airplane. lol

What I am saying is that the aircraft manufacturers get sued when there was absolutely no connection.

Consider what happened to Piper. The pilot of a Piper aircraft was having a disagreement with the airport manager of (IIRC) a private airport. The manager marked the runway closed, and parked his truck on the runway to prevent the pilot from taking off. The pilot chose to attempt to take off despite the condition of the runway. He hit the truck. I cannot recall if he was killed. Anyway, Piper got sued and LOST, IIRC because the ancient Piper Cub had no shoulder belts.

I am saying that the manufactures simply cannot protect themselves here.

Around here, like it or not, liability suits are often about the depth of the pocket, and are not related to any actual responsibility.

I don't think that the nature or source of the training has anything to do with it at all.

Neither you nor I can say how it would have been had the manufacturers been more or less involved with the training. That's just an exercise in "what if"? Your guess is as good as mine. But mine is as good as yours. So let's just drop that line of thought.

What I can say is that the suits often look for the deep pocket regardless of any actual responsibility.

[tonyhays 86]

Quote

You know that I know about that lawsuit, but Strong also handed that jumpmaster a rating, if they had not have, would that have potentially made outcome different?

One of my favorite sayings..."If 'ifs' and 'butts' were candy and nuts...it'd be christmas everyday!!!

They would still be sued, even if they didn't give the rating. The DZ was using Strongs equipment, and has money(Or at least did).

Even though the video clearly showed all the straps loose to the stops(100% TI responsibility), they went after Strong.

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

[rhys 0]

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.....

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

[tonyhays 86]

Haven't heard that in a while!!!

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