USPA BOD meeting in Nashua, NH

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Hi Mike,

Quote

I did not testify against the DZ,

Quote

I'm sure that I have become his number one enemy for life because of my testimony against him.

Could explain these two comments a little fuller?

JerryBaumchen

if you wouldn't mind, Jerry, could we keep this thread on topic? expert witness testifying is a great topic for a new thread, but not relevant to this USPA BOD meeting thread.

BTW anybody, what in fact did happen with the PIA proposal at the BOD meeting? Any further action other than what was described above?

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."

[tkhayes 126]

I was stating that the waiver has to be signed by adults - as in, our waiver, versus a waiver for 'canoeing' is also a binding legal contract with a contract of defenses, as well as surrendering rights to sue.

If you sign such a 'waiver' for your kids, it is invalid and cannot hold up in court.

That is the whole point. A parent cannot sign a contract on behalf of the minor and a parent cannot sign away the minors legal rights, regardless of what the document says.

At the very least, when the minor turns 18, they can sue you as they are now an adult.

[tkhayes 126]

Quote

TK,

I have no argument with anything you say -- except that USPA should be involved.

Well if you use USPA's mission statement in literal form, then no, they should not be involved.

But USPA, dropzones, instructors, aircraft operators, airports, government, manufacturers, packers, and everyone else in skydiving has some level of responsibility to protect the industry from harm.

The harm comes when lawsuits gets filed. We have no insurance so we bear the brunt of the litigation ourselves.

I am not saying it is 'justice' or even that it is 'right'. Lawsuits are not justice, they are a business transaction under legal guise that goes after the deepest pockets.

The instructors have no worries, even they kill someone since they have no money. The dropzone seldom do as well, since almost all of them are 'shell' companies.

So all too often they go after the manufacturers, who generally have no shell corporation and have large assets in buildings, revenues and infrastructure in order to be that 'big manufacturer'

Our responsibility is to also try and protect them.

No parachutes. No skydiving. If you want to bury your head in the sand and deny that this is a problem, then fine. But a mandatory age limit to ensure that people follow the age limits would be a responsible step to REDUCE the risk.

And USPA is recognized as the 'teeth' in skydiving rules, not individual dropzones.

If you leave it up to the dropzones, the manufacturers WILL impose their own rules, and especially in tandem, will begin to yank ratings for life. THAT is reality.

Wing suit people lobbied USPA for some wingsuit rules and we owe it to them to set precedence and be a leader. And we did.

Manufacturers are now asking us for the same, and for no other reason that supporting our industry as a whole - we need to do this.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

TK,

I have no argument with anything you say -- except that USPA should be involved.

Well if you use USPA's mission statement in literal form, then no, they should not be involved.

But USPA, dropzones, instructors, aircraft operators, airports, government, manufacturers, packers, and everyone else in skydiving has some level of responsibility to protect the industry from harm.

The harm comes when lawsuits gets filed. We have no insurance so we bear the brunt of the litigation ourselves.

I am not saying it is 'justice' or even that it is 'right'. Lawsuits are not justice, they are a business transaction under legal guise that goes after the deepest pockets.

The instructors have no worries, even they kill someone since they have no money. The dropzone seldom do as well, since almost all of them are 'shell' companies.

So all too often they go after the manufacturers, who generally have no shell corporation and have large assets in buildings, revenues and infrastructure in order to be that 'big manufacturer'

Our responsibility is to also try and protect them.

No parachutes. No skydiving. If you want to bury your head in the sand and deny that this is a problem, then fine. But a mandatory age limit to ensure that people follow the age limits would be a responsible step to REDUCE the risk.

And USPA is recognized as the 'teeth' in skydiving rules, not individual dropzones.

If you leave it up to the dropzones, the manufacturers WILL impose their own rules, and especially in tandem, will begin to yank ratings for life. THAT is reality.

Wing suit people lobbied USPA for some wingsuit rules and we owe it to them to set precedence and be a leader. And we did.

Manufacturers are now asking us for the same, and for no other reason that supporting our industry as a whole - we need to do this.

TK, wingsuit rules have nothing to do with age limits, and our collective responsibility to protect the sport from harm does in fact extend to discouraging counter-productive behavior.

Which is what i'm trying to do here (as are others).

It is parachuting's rule-intensive heritage as a spinoff of aviation that leads this sport to seek rule-intensive "solutions" to problems instead of thinking creatively, adaptably and common sensically about those problems.

A current example: the continuing problem of people smashing or killing themselves under open parachutes.

Do we do adapt and do the common sense creative thing and reject freefall-focused training in favor of that which focuses first on producing a generally competent pilot before we let them go to the top of Fun Mountain?

Nope. We seek to impose minimum jump number rules on canopy type and size -- even though doing so flies in the face of all the evidence that it's lack of fundamental pilot training that kills jumpers, not their jump numbers related to wing loading.

This is why the PIA initiative is so psychotic; they will kill parachuting more surely through this sort of silliness than through dissolution via lawsuit. You know, NO JUMPERS, NO PARACHUTE SALES.

This whole thing reminds me of the National Park Service mentality regarding bear attacks in Yellowstone 20 years ago. The Craighead brothers proved conclusively that NPS was seriously trying to kill as many bears as possible because the way to get to zero bear maulings was to have... zero bears.

Which looked fine on a bureaucrat's balance sheet, but sorta overlooked the primary function for which NPS exists - to preserve the wildlife.

What PIA REALLY needs to do, in concert with USPA, is to try to get states to pass the sort of liability laws that exist in Colorado, Utah and similar states for the skiing and horse industries; THAT is how you "REDUCE the risk" withoutharming the sport -- excuse me, industry.

This of course takes more time, thinking and creativity than just saying "no one can jump if they're under the age of majority." And of course, a path such as that would be rational and help to grow rather than shrink the sport.

These manufacturers that support this age limit thing really truly don't get it - what they're doing is shrinking the potential customer pool in a way that has exponential consequences down the road. NO JUMPERS, NO PARACHUTE SALES.

And really, if they're so worried about getting sued, then why don't they just sell their businesses to someone who still has cojones instead of trying to destroy the sport because they think it will save their now-risk-averse asses?

We do indeed all have a level of responsibility to protect the industry from harm, and those who pursue ever sillier age restrictions by USPA are doing more harm than any negligent instructor or DZ operator will ever do.

Plus, the whole thing is not only psychotic but utterly pointless: Please list for me the epidemic of underage-jumper lawsuits that prompted this psychotic proposal, then we can resume this discussion.

Or not...

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."

[tkhayes 126]

while some of your arguments might be valid,

Quote

And really, if they're so worried about getting sued, then why don't they just sell their businesses to someone who still has cojones instead of trying to destroy the sport because they think it will save their now-risk-averse asses?

that is plain silly - you assume there would be buyers out there for every business.

Quote

We do indeed all have a level of responsibility to protect the industry from harm, and those who pursue ever sillier age restrictions by USPA are doing more harm than any negligent instructor or DZ operator will ever do.

what 'greater harm' are they doing by trying to protect themselves? The sport is in jeopardy because we would not take 16 year olds? I think not.

Quote

What PIA REALLY needs to do, in concert with USPA, is to try to get states to pass the sort of liability laws that exist in Colorado, Utah and similar states for the skiing and horse industries; THAT is how you "REDUCE the risk" withoutharming the sport -- excuse me, industry.

monumental task not within our realm.

skiing - billions and billions of dollars (and lobbyists)
horses - billions and billions of dollars (and lobbyists)
skydiving, millions perhaps. Example - we cannot even get NFPA to change the rules about rapid refueling even though we know it is safe.

Quote

Plus, the whole thing is not only psychotic but utterly pointless: Please list for me the epidemic of underage-jumper lawsuits that prompted this psychotic proposal, then we can resume this discussion.

I can list all the lawsuits that were PREVENTED at Skydive City by having a valid, legal, binding waiver.contract signed by the ADULT participant.

The waiver works. We are proof of it. Not letting 16 year olds jump will not harm your business. We are proof of that as well.

and 'psychotic' is probably way stronger language that is based in reality.

[SkyPiggie 0]

Quote

I did not testify against the DZ, I testified against the pilot...
Bill Dause... I'm sure that I have become his number one enemy for life because of my testimony against him.

Wait a minute. You testified against the pilot, who was Bill Dause.
Bill Dause is the drop zone owner.
Therefore, by testifying against the pilot, you testified against the drop zone.

Aren't you playing word games a bit there?

[MikeTJumps 4]

Nope. I very specifically testified as to the Pilot's operation of the aircraft. I said nothing about the DZ's policy.

Mike Turoff
Instructor Examiner, USPA
Co-author of Parachuting, The Skydiver's Handbook

[robinheid 0]

Quote

and 'psychotic' is probably way stronger language that is based in reality.

it is indeed based on reality, TK. Glad you agree.


naaahhh, i know that was a typo...

look, we're pretty much on the same page here - trying to reduce risks to the sport and its associated industry.

I just think restricting the age at which people can participate is a dumb way to do it, in large part because is not considered to be a "best practice" by many other risk sports -- sports whose associated industries have individual companies with pockets are way deeper than every sport parachuting-related business combined.

These sports get kids involved early and thus create lifelong participants of many of them... or at least participation much longer than is average in sport parachuting, and thus generate more absolute numbers as well as longer overall numbers, to include more total equipment purchases over the life of their (generally) longer (and more numerous) careers.

Within the currently accepted mentality in our "industry," there is no room for kids and that is in fact what makes the average skydiver age way up there compared to other risk sports; kids find other stuff to do.

You point out that not letting 16-year-olds jump won't harm your business... well, how do you really know how much you are or are not harming your business when you very actively ignore, discourage and exclude young people who want to skydive?

If sport parachuting marketing outreach went after younger people too -- you know, such as making the sport a FAMILY AFFAIR, the way many of these these other risk sports do, you would most likely see that demographic become a bigger part of the overall sport -- along with more family participation.

Capabiility at a given age is highly variable, too; that's why at the few DZs that do let youngsters jump, the parents are heaviily involved and usually are required to make the final call. For some kids it may be 11 or 12, like the Mullins kids. Some won't be putting their knees in the breeze until they're 18. It all depends -- and that's the way it should be.

As one young lady in my Young DZs article said, her 14-year-old brother was getting a ticket to New Zealand so he could jump, and she called him more qualified than some of the adults she knew. "Sometimes we don't give kids enough credit," she said, "and sometimes we give adults more than we should."

one other point: yes, the skiing and horse industries have billions of dollars to better fight liability lawsuits, but remember too: they face a lot more and better lawyers because the more money there is, the bigger the payoff when you win.

If you look at sport parachuting as a closed, fully mature system that cannot be further adapted, then maybe an "official" age restriction makes sense from one of those viewpoints you've described but which I still don't buy.

And that's where you are, TK.

You remind me of the college professor who went to the Zen master and said, "Teach me Zen."

And the Zen master said, "Okay, but let's have tea first."

The Zen master filled the professor's cup past overflowing until the startled professor implored him to stop.

The Zen master set down the tea kettle and said: "How can I teach you Zen? Your head is already overflowing with everything you think you know."

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."

[tkhayes 126]

Quote

You point out that not letting 16-year-olds jump won't harm your business... well, how do you really know how much you are or are not harming your business when you very actively ignore, discourage and exclude young people who want to skydive?

We know because we DID allow 16 year olds to jump for a year or two and it made not difference. I think we got 2.

[normiss 622]

There are repeated legal precedence cases in multiple states.
We're going to have to accept 18 as the age to undertake any activity involving risk.

http://tallahassee.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/florida-supreme-court-parents-cant-waive-liability-for-kids-.aspx?googleid=253126

http://sbmblog.typepad.com/sbm-blog/2010/06/michigan-supreme-court-parents-cant-waive-their-kids-right-to-sue-for-injury.html

http://www.insuranceday.org/high-court-parents-cant-sign-away-kids-rights/

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-133493568/parent-cant-waive-child.html

Even in Canadia eh!

http://www.halifaxpersonalinjurylawyerblog.com/2009/11/parents_cannot_waive_childrens.html

[Southern_Man 0]

Normiss,

Thank you, it is very helpful to have actual cases to look at--which is what I was asking for. My googling skills aren't the best but it looks like the Florida legislature has enacted a statute upholding the validity of a parentally signed waiver. Previously apparently the validity of these waivers were dependent only on case law. Looks like it may only apply to motorsports and theme parks, though. Not sure why the legislature didn't apply it to all commercial adventure sports as Florida has quite the Scuba industry, too.

I guess that is similar to the Utah bill on skiing mentioned earlier.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

You point out that not letting 16-year-olds jump won't harm your business... well, how do you really know how much you are or are not harming your business when you very actively ignore, discourage and exclude young people who want to skydive?

We know because we DID allow 16 year olds to jump for a year or two and it made not difference. I think we got 2.

there is a difference between allowing them to jump and seeking them out. that's my point here. Yes, there are not that many 16-year-olds jumping anywhere because the "industry" has this extreme prejudice about letting them jump.

If parachuting marketed itself to younger people the way motorcross, skiing and other risk sports do, then you would see higher participation levels from this demographic.

Sure, there is a cost-benefit balance in terms of the added legal exposure, but other sports have found ways around this, yet we as an "industry" do not investigate their best practices on this.

And with the ongoing "greying" of our sport, we do in fact need to address this prejudice that is slowly strangling us.

Think about it: As I recall, we had about 30,000 USPA members in 1980 when the US population was 226 million. Now it is 310 million and we still have 30K members, whose average age rises every year.

This is a NO-BRAINER, TK; our "industry" needs to face these long-term trends and make some intelligent choices, chief among them being to reduce the low-timer injury rate (and therefore legal exposure) by discarding the backasswards training system that focuses on freefall (the fun part) at the expense of parachute flying (the survival part).

Until we do that, guys like you will just keep adding bandaids like age limits to a bleeding artery and think you're actually accomplishing something.

TK, you're a major player in this industry and a high-quality, high-performance player at that, but you REALLY need to empty your cup, climb out of your box and start thinking creatively instead of reactively.

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."

[normiss 622]

I think he would be better served to think from a legal perspective as opposed to a creative one.
Lawsuits will put us out of business.
pure and simple.

If the legal standards establish you must be an ADULT to skydive, creative thinking won't do any good.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

I think he would be better served to think from a legal perspective as opposed to a creative one.
Lawsuits will put us out of business.
pure and simple.

If the legal standards establish you must be an ADULT to skydive, creative thinking won't do any good.

the EXACT same legal standards apply to multiple other risk sports, so it doesn't even take any creative thinking to check out how they handle it -- just some Research 101 skills.

You seem to have a very good research skillset so why don't you check out info on how these other sports DO IT instead of focusing on reasons why we CAN'T?

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."

[PhreeZone 15]

Quote

Think about it: As I recall, we had about 30,000 USPA members in 1980 when the US population was 226 million. Now it is 310 million and we still have 30K members, whose average age rises every year.

USPA Membership in 1980 was around 16500
USPA Membership in 1990 was around 20000
USPA Membership in 2000 was 34,217

We've doubled the membership numbers since 1980, that's a far cry from remaining the same...

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[normiss 622]

From a personal standpoint as well as looking out for my DZ (and/or employer for that matter), I would prefer to pass on assuming the risk of having someone's child getting hurt or killed while jumping.

This isn't going to change, no matter how good a KID has "mad skills", is "ready" or not, or the fact that you're one of the rare few under 18 and already jumping.
As a parent, I cannot waive rights my children have not yet gotten because they simply aren't adults.

And before someone starts shouting "I can risk my life for the country in the military and not drink" if it's still the same as when I was in, you're welcome to drink at the club on base.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

Think about it: As I recall, we had about 30,000 USPA members in 1980 when the US population was 226 million. Now it is 310 million and we still have 30K members, whose average age rises every year.

USPA Membership in 1980 was around 16500
USPA Membership in 1990 was around 20000
USPA Membership in 2000 was 34,217

We've doubled the membership numbers since 1980, that's a far cry from remaining the same...

Well, that's why I said "As I recall..."

Regardless, my point remains because, by your own count and USPA's, our numbers dropped during the last decade after 30 years of increases (USPA.org says the 2010 numbers are "more than 32,000") -- and the "greying" of our population remains a key demographic trend that is not being addressed.

I just don't get it: why do you peeps so stubbornly refuse to do a basic "best practices" study of other risk sports and how they handle young participants?

It's a no-brainer.

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."

[robinheid 0]

Quote

From a personal standpoint as well as looking out for my DZ (and/or employer for that matter), I would prefer to pass on assuming the risk of having someone's child getting hurt or killed while jumping.

This isn't going to change, no matter how good a KID has "mad skills", is "ready" or not, or the fact that you're one of the rare few under 18 and already jumping.
As a parent, I cannot waive rights my children have not yet gotten because they simply aren't adults.

And before someone starts shouting "I can risk my life for the country in the military and not drink" if it's still the same as when I was in, you're welcome to drink at the club on base.

I just don't get it: why do you peeps so stubbornly refuse to do a basic "best practices" study of other risk sports and how they handle young participants?

It's a no-brainer.

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."

[normiss 622]

You're right.
It IS a no-brainer.


No one under 18.

next?

[robinheid 0]

Quote

You're right.
It IS a no-brainer.


No one under 18.

next?

I just don't get it: why do you so stubbornly refuse to do a basic "best practices" study of other risk sports and how they handle young participants?

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."

[normiss 622]

Because there is already legal precedence established.
The waivers won't stand up.
It's a futile effort to even think we could get around those. If the court says 18, our lawyers say 18, and the USPA says 18, then 18 it is. End of discussion.
If someone under 18 HAS to skydive, then find a private club willing to accept the risk of a lawsuit that will shut them down.
I'm not interested in what other sports or businesses do, I'm interested in the legal implications involving skydiving.
The other sports you're thinking have nowhere near our level of risk.

We have enough adults killing themselves, why do you want to add kids to that?

[Southern_Man 0]

Looks like it is a matter or state law, though, which means that simply stating, "the waivers won't stand up" is not accurate or helpful. Some may, some may not.

I honestly don't know how I feel and am trying to sort out all the issues. I am currently leaning towards the 'let DZs make their own decision" simply because of the multitude of jurisdictions they operate in.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[NovaTTT 1]

Quote

I just don't get it: why do you so stubbornly refuse to do a basic "best practices" study of other risk sports and how they handle young participants?

Robin - you seem to feel a real need to have this research done and you seem to be a forerunner of the "open access" debate.

Why, then, don't you do the research into other sports' practices for involving minors and report the findings to the skydiving community rather than repetetively asking others to do the research?

As nice as it would be, I think it's a candle-in-the-wind proposition.

N

"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Because there is already legal precedence established.
The waivers won't stand up.
It's a futile effort to even think we could get around those. If the court says 18, our lawyers say 18, and the USPA says 18, then 18 it is. End of discussion.
If someone under 18 HAS to skydive, then find a private club willing to accept the risk of a lawsuit that will shut them down.
I'm not interested in what other sports or businesses do, I'm interested in the legal implications involving skydiving.
The other sports you're thinking have nowhere near our level of risk.

We have enough adults killing themselves, why do you want to add kids to that?

Those precedents apply equally to multiple other risk sports that, contrary to your assertion, are also very risky and afford young people ample opportunity to kill or maim themselves or others.

So I say again: I just don't get it: why do you so stubbornly refuse to do a basic "best practices" study of other risk sports and how they handle young participants?

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."

[pilotdave 0]

I agree. Skydiving is FAR more dangerous than skiing, skateboarding, etc. It also is less tolerant to mistakes. There's no bunny slope in skydiving. Skydiving is also FAR less accepted as a sport than all those other dangerous activities kids do. And it's a much smaller market than any of those other activities. And I bet there's insurance available to skateboard parks that isn't available to dropzones.

I soloed a plane at 16. Glider pilots are allowed to solo at 14. I don't have a huge problem with 16-year-old skydivers. My DZ allows 16 year olds to do AFF (not tandems), but only if they come from a skydiver's family and under strict rules so we're comfortable there won't be any legal problems. But I wouldn't want it to be open to every 16 year old in the general public. It has to be taken very seriously.

I don't think the USPA needs to regulate ages except that I don't think dropzones will do it themselves. If USPA dropped the age 16 requirement, US dropzones would start taking 8 year olds for tandems in a heartbeat. I don't mind the USPA putting a stop to that.

Dave