MikeTJumps 4 #1 July 16, 2010 The BOD is currently meeting in the Crown Plaza Hotel in Nashua, NH. Many topics are being discussed and today, the topic of minimum age limits was brought up by representatives of the Parachute Industry Association. The USPA BOD is going to defer action on this topic until consultation with USPA's legal representation has the opportunity to review the presentation of and consult with PIA's lead representative on the subject matter, Robert Feldman.Mike Turoff Instructor Examiner, USPA Co-author of Parachuting, The Skydiver's Handbook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #2 July 16, 2010 What is the PIA proposing? Higher or lower than the current age of 18? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slotperfect 7 #3 July 16, 2010 Raising the age to the age of legal majority (18 in most states, but up to 21 in others). Discussion will be whether it stipulates age of legal majority in the state in which the jump is made or the state in which the jumper resides. Robert Feldman and USPA counsel are to confer on this at a later date.Arrive Safely John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeTJumps 4 #4 July 16, 2010 The age of legal majority (no one younger than 18 in 47 states and in other states, 19 and 21. This can be a major problem for some exisiting operations. It has been taken under advisement.Mike Turoff Instructor Examiner, USPA Co-author of Parachuting, The Skydiver's Handbook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #5 July 16, 2010 USPA Should have NO age BSR or even care and leave it to the DZ's. This is the same mind set that got them into trouble with the whole skyride thing. They will get some one pissed and LOSE in court if they try to dictate to individual businesses what age a jumper must be. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeTJumps 4 #6 July 16, 2010 Your reply ignores the liability issues that our litigatious society uses to shut down businesses. The PIA is concerned that one underage fatality could put manufacturers out of business in the current legal climate. They are also concerned that the USPA could be named in a lawsuit and also be driven out of existence. If that happens, none of us will have new equipment to jump or an organization to represent us. Don't shoot the messenger. Weigh in with your opinion to your regional director!Mike Turoff Instructor Examiner, USPA Co-author of Parachuting, The Skydiver's Handbook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #7 July 16, 2010 No, my reply was only that USPA should stay out of it, by getting into it they MAKE THEM SELVES open to Liability. Manufacturers have already made their opinion clear. Drop Zones want to jump 16 year old's so be it, they can hire the lawyers. USPA now has to ask a lawyer his opinion, cost to us already. What USPA should do is drop the Age BSR all together. USPA Has enough Rules. This is a silly attempt by one or two individuals to scare the BOD (and the membership) in to doing some thing rash, like the skyride incident. If the BOD followed it owns rules Skyride would be gone and this age thing would not be on the table as well as other discussions that seem silly to me. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #8 July 16, 2010 Quote No, my reply was only that USPA should stay out of it, by getting into it they MAKE THEM SELVES open to Liability. Manufacturers have already made their opinion clear. Drop Zones want to jump 16 year old's so be it, they can hire the lawyers. USPA now has to ask a lawyer his opinion, cost to us already. What USPA should do is drop the Age BSR all together. USPA Has enough Rules. This is a silly attempt by one or two individuals to scare the BOD (and the membership) in to doing some thing rash, like the skyride incident. If the BOD followed it owns rules Skyride would be gone and this age thing would not be on the table as well as other discussions that seem silly to me. Matt +1 The PIA proposal is psychotic. Not only does it FURTHER MIRE THEM in potential liability because they do not remain silent on age, it further limits their ability to sell their products because the longer they make young people wait to participate, the more of those young people will find some other sport in which to get involved. The PIA proposal is idiotic as well as psychotic. Think about what ages the FAA allows kids to get a pilot's license. Talk about manufacturer liability; what exactly is the manufacturer liability if a 17-year-old pilot crashes his plane into a school and kills a bunch of kids? These MORONS are shooting themselves in the head -- and the rest of the sport and industry too. I say again: the longer they make young people wait to participate, the more of those young people will find some other sport in which to get involved -- sports whose governing associations don't have psychotic entry age requirements. The PIA proposal really truly is psychotic too; they are doing exactly what will most quickly kill sport parachuting -- thus further restricting the number of younger people able to participate and thus bringing closer the day when they will go out of business by attrition. The psychotic nature of this proposal is not even debatable unless you're a complete loon yourself, or deliberately trying to ruin the sport. As for USPA taking action... not only did USPA get its ass kicked by interfering way outside its mandate with the Skyride fiasco, USPA is already way out on a limb by establishing an age limit in the first place... there has been a lot of chatter about what other associations do vis a vis online voting so USPA should follow what all those other orgs do and adopt online voting.... I propose that USPA do the same thing with its silly age limit; find out what all the other high-risk adventure sport associations do vis a vis age limits and adopt those. Think about how psychotic the whole age thing is: Car racing associations don't impose age limits, nor do motocross racing, snow skiing, skateboarding and a whole host of other sport associations where kids can kill or maim themselves or others. USPA essentially stands alone in demanding that the businesses which cater to its members only allow them to service customers that have reached a certain age. Now compare the size, scope, and vitality of those other sports compared to sport parachuting (even allowing for the difference in potential participants, etc) and you can see that forbidding kids from participating until they are legally adults is not just psychotic -- it's f------ nuts. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slotperfect 7 #9 July 16, 2010 ONLINE VOTING MOTION PASSED 4088 to 66 (1 abstention) 4106 total proxies submitted.Arrive Safely John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 1 #10 July 16, 2010 I agree with your posts #5 and 7. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #11 July 17, 2010 Last time I checked you could solo a sailplane @14 and that is an FAA rule/lawyou can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slotperfect 7 #12 July 17, 2010 There is no FAA rule/law about minimum skydiving age. Big difference.Arrive Safely John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #13 July 17, 2010 Yea your right, the FAA seems to think a 14 yr old can safely fly a sailplane solo, you ever fly a sailplane? Takes a little bit of skill to just be towed up let alone released and fly back to port. There is no reason other then greed a lawyers that a 16 yr old or in some cases a 14 yr old couldn't safely make a jump the same as glider flying. I've known a number of people who started skydiving @ 14 and @ 16, I was one of those who started @16. We don't need a BSR for age, next thing you know they start telling old fucks like Sanborn he's too old. (I would have said "like you" but wouldn't want you think it was a PA....) you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LongWayToFall 0 #14 July 17, 2010 Good news! My vote was worth my time! How many votes did we need to pass it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slotperfect 7 #15 July 17, 2010 About 3200 to get a quorum.Arrive Safely John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Inspired 0 #16 July 17, 2010 QuoteONLINE VOTING MOTION PASSED 4088 to 66 (1 abstention) 4106 total proxies submitted. I wonder how many 'no' votes never got counted because people tried to 'leverage' their vote by not sending it in. I guess we'll never know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeTJumps 4 #17 July 18, 2010 What makes you suspicious that any votes didn't get counted. The staff have the highest level of integrity. Why don't yo volunteer to help out with a count if you want to allay your suspicions? FYI: The proxies will be maintained in a safe place at HQ until March of next year.Mike Turoff Instructor Examiner, USPA Co-author of Parachuting, The Skydiver's Handbook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #18 July 18, 2010 QuoteWhat makes you suspicious that any votes didn't get counted. The staff have the highest level of integrity. Why don't yo volunteer to help out with a count if you want to allay your suspicions? FYI: The proxies will be maintained in a safe place at HQ until March of next year. I don't think he was alleging fraud at all. Votes can't get counted if people don't send them in. There were a number of people on this site who advocated NOT sending your ballot in if you believed the vote should be NO. The idea was that if the NO votes were withheld altogether there was a better chance of minimum numbers for the proxy not being achieved. The results show that strategy was flawed as there were more than enough sent in to achieve the minimums."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeTJumps 4 #19 July 18, 2010 You are right in that the strategy of withholding votes was flawed. Our national election likewise has too small a percentage of eligible voters going to the polls because they think their vote won't be meaningful.Mike Turoff Instructor Examiner, USPA Co-author of Parachuting, The Skydiver's Handbook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #20 July 18, 2010 QuoteYou are right in that the strategy of withholding votes was flawed. Our national election likewise has too small a percentage of eligible voters going to the polls because they think their vote won't be meaningful. Actually, people thought withholding no votes would be VERY meaningful. Let's say there were 3,500 votes needed to achieve a 10% proxy. If 1751 of those were yes votes and 1749 of those were no votes, the proxy would pass with the support of only 5.0003% of the membership supporting it. The idea was, then, if you don't send in a no vote, there are then only the 1751 yes votes would be counted, which would not allow the 10% to be achieved. Thus, the no votes (that were withheld) were VERY meaningful. Since there were well more than the minimum number of votes cast, this strategy didn't work in this case."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 419 #21 July 18, 2010 QuoteYour reply ignores the liability issues that our litigatious society uses to shut down businesses. The PIA is concerned that one underage fatality could put manufacturers out of business in the current legal climate. They are also concerned that the USPA could be named in a lawsuit and also be driven out of existence. If that happens, none of us will have new equipment to jump or an organization to represent us. Don't shoot the messenger. Weigh in with your opinion to your regional director! If a manufacturer is worried about losing a lawsuit to an underage jumper, they need only to placard the rig accordingly. Manufacturers easily win suits everyday when the equipment they sell is used outside the parameters they set. PIA/USPA should stay away from this one.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 259 #22 July 18, 2010 Does the sailplane community have an association that is tasked with self-policing their sport, like USPA is supposed to do for skydiving? If they don't, then the FAA is who regulates them, thus it makes sense that there is an FAA mandated minimum age for flying a sailplane and there isn't one for skydiving. The FAA leaves a lot of the "details" of regulating skydiving to USPA - the whole "self-regulating" or "self-policing" thing. If USPA doesn't address issues that need addressing, eventually the FAA will do it for us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeTJumps 4 #23 July 18, 2010 Perhaps you are unaware that Sunpath lost a major lawsuit by an adult lady who had Mark Schaltter (dec.) lie on the stand about a defect in their equipment. She also lied on the stand about how her position during the deployment of her reserve. If the waiver can be completely ignored for an adult, it certainly can be completely ignored for an underage person. If you have any need for more information, I'll give you the contact information for the PIA's attorney and he will be happy to educate you on the subject matter.Mike Turoff Instructor Examiner, USPA Co-author of Parachuting, The Skydiver's Handbook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,304 #24 July 18, 2010 Hi Mike, Quotewho had Mark Schaltter (dec.) lie on the stand QuoteShe also lied on the stand about how her position during the deployment of her reserve. Those are some serious charges. I sat in on Bob Feldman's presentation at PIA in Reno and found his presentation VERY biased. But then again, he is being paid to do that. After the PIA I also received a long document from Mark S. on his viewpoints of this incident. What proof can you provide that they both lied on the stand? I do not know the total truth but an accusation of lieing should have some basis in fact. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #25 July 18, 2010 Quote Perhaps you are unaware that Sunpath lost a major lawsuit by an adult lady who had Mark Schaltter (dec.) lie on the stand about a defect in their equipment. She also lied on the stand about how her position during the deployment of her reserve. If the waiver can be completely ignored for an adult, it certainly can be completely ignored for an underage person. If you have any need for more information, I'll give you the contact information for the PIA's attorney and he will be happy to educate you on the subject matter. Good on ya, mate... you just shot PIA and its moronic proposal right in the head. If no one is safe, regardless of age, regardless of waiver status, then why exactly go for this psychotic prohibition that will further stunt the growth of sport parachuting and eventually put PIA and its members out of business anyway? SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
This Site Is For Sale
