Should a USPA member who is suing to shutdown a USPA Group Member Drop Zone be allowed to jump at any USPA Group Member Drop Zone?

[Luminous 0]

I'm curious what others think.

'In an insane society a sane person seems insane.' Mr. Spock

[brettski74 0]

I don't think you can generalize like that in the first place. What is the suit over? If it's over something like the Lodi tail-strike case, the guy's a dink, but there may be other perfectly legitimate grievances between two skydivers where one of them happens to be a DZO.

Secondly, while I'm not a huge fan of lawsuits, I'm also not a huge fan of over-regulation and unnecessary restrictions. It's really not the USPA's decision over who can jump at any given dropzone. It's also none of my or your business unless you happen to be the DZO of the dropzone in question. That's a decision for the DZO and his/her staff.

[billvon 2,394]

Yes. If a USPA member sees a serious safety violation at a DZ, and the DZO will not resolve it, and he tries to get it shut down to save people's lives, then not only should they be allowed to jump at other USPA DZ's, I'd buy him a beer.

[peek 20]

OK, we need a legal explanation really bad here. Any of our attorney friends like to take this on?

Someone specifically "suing to shut down a drop zone" seems unlikely. Could that even be done? Or would it take a government agency to shut down a business? (Suing to get a monetary judgment or a settlement which would cause the business to fail seems more likely.)

Perhaps the OP can give us the names and dropzone and someone can look up the legal documents.

[brettski74 0]

Quote

Suing to get a monetary judgment or a settlement which would case the business to fail seems more likely.

This is how I interpreted the subject - a lawsuit where a judgement against the DZ or DZO could make the DZ unable to continue operations.

[Andy9o8 0]

Could you please tell us precisely the situation you're referring to? It's pretty hard for us to give you a meaningful response to an abstraction.

[propacker 0]

in a very VERY rough nutshell. the 'mean green machine" used to jump at our dropzone and liked it so much he built a house and hanger on the adjoining fly-in subdivision. he used to be on a sponsored team and would ocassionally land in his own back yard at the end of the day. there was a possible falling out with the previous owner and he eventually began jumping at the other dropzone in town where he is currently on a sponsored team. he has since banded together a FEW homeowners and hanger owners (who are thru deed restristions allowed to use our airport facilities) and is trying to get us shut down for being a nuscience (ok - I cant spell that word) because we are actually landing on our property and the runway (it is a closed airport except for us and the subdivision homeowners). they went to court to get an injunction against us to make us stop landing on our property.
WE OWN THE AIRPORT FACILITIES!
they lost the case yesterday.
like I said VERY rough nutshell

[grimmie 173]

Pay your USPA dues, get to jump.

Many lawsuits have taken place over the years between DZO's, jumpers,, gear makers, etc.

What is your specific beef?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

OK, we need a legal explanation really bad here. Someone specifically "suing to shut down a drop zone" seems unlikely.

Believe it or not, it's true. Here's some background.

A skydiver lives on the airport property of a drop zone, in an aviation community, where the homes have hangers and taxiways leading to the runway. The actual airport is owned by the drop zone. The homeowners have covenants which grant them access to and usage of the airport runway, for their private aircraft. It's a private airport, and the only traffic is from the DZ and the homeowners. When the community was first built, the homeowners paid a monthly maintenance fee for the upkeep of the airport. Over time, the airport fell into disrepair, and the homeowners quit paying their maintenance fees.

Along came the parachute center and bought the airport. The DZ now maintains the airport at their own expense, and the homeowners contribute nothing. Yet they still get free use of the airport, because of the community covenants. Seems like a good deal for them, eh?

Well, for a small band of the homeowners, including the skydiver, that's not good enough. They desire to take over the airport exclusively for themselves, and to that end, they are trying to shut down the drop zone and run it off the property, forcing it's sale, which they would then buy.

To do that they claim that the DZ is a nuisance which deprives them of the use of the airport that they need for their personal aircraft. The DZ operates one Otter and one Cessna. A busy summer weekend day will consist of about 22 Otter loads. Hardly enough to dominate airport operation capabilities. The skies are clear of jumpers for about 15 minutes out of every 20 minutes, which is the jump cycle time of the Otter.

Along with the "nuisance" claims, they allege that operations are unsafe. They say landing on the airport is a violation of FARS, which it's not (see the thread about FAR 105.23 here). They sit at their end of the runway and take pictures to document these "safety violations": anytime they think a parachutist lands on the runway, any time they think a skydiver freefalls through a cloud, anytime the Otter takes off downwind in only a slight breeze (thread here), and any time a jumper lands off-airport. These safety claims are all just ploys to cause trouble and to try and pressure the drop zone to shut down. They have nothing from the FAA stating that these events are unsafe, or that the drop zone practices are unsafe.

And the irony is that this skydiver used to be a regular jumper at this drop zone, jumping out of the very same airplane, and participating in all the practices and accidental events which come with skydiving, which he now claims make the DZ unsafe. One of the principles of the law is that in order to sue someone else for something, you must not be guilty of that offense yourself. This skydiver does not have "clean hands" in this matter. He's a hypocrite.

Many of the allegations they allege, if they were successful, would shut down drop zones all over America. They even alleged that Twin Otters are unsafe at one point. They even wrote the Otter pilot a personal letter, threatening to sue him if he continued to fly for the drop zone. He ignored it, and his name was added to the lawsuit. They have subpoenaed the DZ land owner, the DZ operator, a DZ investor, many members of the staff, both past and present, even the manifest chick. They make demands for all kinds of business and personal records.

The lawsuit costs him nothing personally, because he is using funds belonging to the homeowner association. Meanwhile, the drop zone has incurred tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses, running $400 per hour. This is money the DZ could be spending to upgrade student gear, or perform infrastructure maintenance and improvements.

He has petitioned the county judge for an injunction to shut down the drop zone. It's a drop zone that has been in business for about 15 years, in this location.

Their ultimate goal is to re-take the airport land, and then start making the homeowners pay maintenance fees again - to them. They claim to be the new board of the homeowners association, who should be in charge of the neighborhood and the airport. But even that is in dispute, with another lawsuit from the other homeowners, against this small band of men.

This skydiver, meanwhile, continues to jump at a second drop zone on the other side of town. All while at the same time trying to shut down the first drop zone, for his own personal land grab.

So the question from the original poster asks, is this; should this guy who is working contrary to the interests of skydiving in general, and one drop zone in particular, be allowed to continue to jump everywhere else? Should USPA revoke his membership? Should we just allow him to continue jumping, business as usual, while he stabs skydiving in the back?

I believe this is a true and faithful representation of the facts. For doing this, I'll probably be next on his hit list for a subpoena and lawsuit. And all this pains me, because I used to consider this man a friend...

Note: In no way am I trying to create any trouble for the other drop zone at which he jumps.

[peek 20]

Quote

Believe it or not, it's true. Here's some background.

Aha, thanks for the info. All we need now is a name!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

All we need now is a name!

See the attached image. This is his team photo from a recent local competition.

The name of the innocent drop zone at which he jumps, and the identities of his innocent teammates, have been protected. They are not a factor in this lawsuit and should suffer no repercussions from it, for the independent actions of their teammate.

If the user here named "Slyde" can be banished from the USPA for "conduct unbecoming a skydiver", then shouldn't that also apply to someone who is suing to shut down a group member drop zone, and set a court precedent that could be used to shut down many others?

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Should USPA revoke his membership? Should we just allow him to continue jumping, business as usual, while he stabs skydiving in the back

I'd be curious to know what grounds you or others think USPA might have for revoking his membership (unfortunately, I don't think "acting like a petty asshole" is enough of a reason)? Why not let the dropzones where he might choose to jump make their own decisions? They are all private business and, as such, can refuse to do business with anyone for pretty much any reason.

"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

[adamx 0]

Sounds like a real douche. Revoke his membership, Tonya Harding style

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Should USPA revoke his membership? Should we just allow him to continue jumping, business as usual, while he stabs skydiving in the back

I'd be curious to know what grounds you or others think USPA might have for revoking his membership (unfortunately, I don't think "acting like a petty asshole" is enough of a reason)? Why not let the dropzones where he might choose to jump make their own decisions? They are all private business and, as such, can refuse to do business with anyone for pretty much any reason.

What she said.

[surfbum5412 0]

Of course he shouldn't be restricted from jumping at a USPA dropzone. On the flip side though, as a business owner, I have the RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE FOR ANY REASON. I wouldn't let him on my DZ, nothing personal, it's just business.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

Should USPA revoke his membership? Should we just allow him to continue jumping, business as usual, while he stabs skydiving in the back

I'd be curious to know what grounds you or others think USPA might have for revoking his membership (unfortunately, I don't think "acting like a petty asshole" is enough of a reason)? Why not let the dropzones where he might choose to jump make their own decisions? They are all private business and, as such, can refuse to do business with anyone for pretty much any reason.

+1.

As much as this seems to be a bad blood within skydiving thing, it has nothing to do with the USPA, and there for in order to protect the interests of all the other members, the USPA should remain uninvolved in the situation.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Luminous 0]

Thank you for the summary.

I realize now my lack of detail on the original post would make this poll hard to answer but I couldn't have explained it as well.

Quote

Meanwhile, the drop zone has incurred tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses, running $400 per hour.

And it's about to affect the price of my jump ticket.

I also used to consider him a friend, and it was kind of sad to see him on the other side of the court room with his little group. You never know.

Cheers
Larry

'In an insane society a sane person seems insane.' Mr. Spock

[Beachbum 0]

Quote

They even alleged that Twin Otters are unsafe at one point.

Aside from the fact that he used to quite willingly jump from Alpha Lima, the dz he currently jumps at uses Otters as their primary jump ships. I guess they are only unsafe at certain dz's!

Legalities aside, I'd love to see any jumper willing to attempt putting many dz's at risk for their own benefit run OUT of the sport. Have to admit, in a way I agree with the post about Slyde and "conduct unbecoming" ... if what he did qualifies, surely this should also. Yes, I do jump at the dz in question quite a bit. As to the poll though, I agree with others that it's probably not really something the USPA should do, as much as I wish I could justify thinking otherwise.

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[Luminous 0]

Quote

they lost the case yesterday.

They lost the injuction to shut down business as usual at the DZ until the case is settled. They were denied that. The lawsuit is still active.

As I understand a few concessions were made on both sides.

We'll see.

'In an insane society a sane person seems insane.' Mr. Spock

[wmw999 2,120]

Please think about what you post, and make sure that nothing is posted in anger that might jeopardize the DZ's case.

Larry, I'm picking yours because it's so general that I can't imagine it damaging anything. I don't know enough legal stuff to know when something is an issue, I just don't want any surprises.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[tombuch 0]

It sounds like this guy has competing interests, and that’s pretty normal in life. It also sounds like the plaintiff here is an organization of property owners, and not an individual skydiver. Likewise the legal action is against an individual business, and not the industry as a whole (although there is an assertion that a victory by the property owners could have negative impacts nationwide). I don’t like what I’m hearing, and if I ran the other drop zone where this skydiver is jumping I might apply some pressure or not let him jump at by business. However, based on what I’ve read here (so far) USPA shouldn’t be in a position of prohibiting this individual member from exercising his rights within the judicial system, or prohibit him from taking actions which he believes to be in his financial interest. Nor should he be penalized as an individual for the legal actions of an organization to which he belongs.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[aliveboy2004 0]

I would think that if a lawsuit is still active - the other local dropzone where this person is jumping would not allow him to jump until things are all settled. I'm sure that they would not want it to look like they are not supporting the dropzone being sued.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Nor should he be penalized as an individual for the legal actions of an organization to which he belongs.

It's not just that he belongs to the organization - he is on the so-called board of directors, whose names are specifically listed as the plaintiffs on the lawsuit and other court documents. He is one of the instigators of the lawsuit. If he didn't want to be a part of it, his name wouldn't appear as a plaintiff.

[JoeQ.Public 0]

USPA should have nothing to do with it. He should be black balled by us skydivers. Politics being what they are though,I'm sure the DZ he jumps at now is happy with what he is doing. Fucktard.

Very soon, an honest person will not be able to sing the last 2 lines of our National Anthem:::Practice safe dining....use condiments

[grimmie 173]

Are USPA funds being used to defend the DZ?