Lodi Facing Million Dollar Lawsuit

[crashtested 0]

Andy,

I agree, that the bpa has some pretty dumb stuff, it has some pretty cool stuff as well.

Wearing helmets which have little to no crash protection in them but making them mandatory.

or being able to wear a frap hat instead?? ffs

but mandatory flight line checking is a good thing, does it add to people becoming complaicent.. i don't know.

you know ,i know, we all know the good the bad the ugly...

I think that people should take there own choices once quallified, say 200 jumps or something.

Who knows. this thread is quite old anyway.

[michaelt 0]

Thanks for your reply, Zoom. I can totally relate to what you describe... I've been there myself and not having racked up the big jump numbers I spent a looooong time in this state what you describe.

At the end of the day though I have to admit, I was the one that wanted to jump the big ships and be with the big boys even if that put me out of my league. The thing was, Bill always seems to have an awareness of everything and everybody on the DZ and he'd approach me, and tell me where I screwed up and how to do it better. And although he's quite direct, I never doubted that the only motivation he had was to help me be a better skydiver and have a safer DZ.

If I would get hurt as a result of being overwhelmed, I should ask myself why I couldn't have just added one thing at a time to each jump rather than have all these new things at once cause sensory overload. Or why not stay with a smaller plane, a smaller dropzone until I'm "ready for Lodi"

But for me to ask for millions of dollars, which all it would result in is making a lawyer rich, me miserable spiritually because I have to justify it to myself to make it "right" inside and put Bill out of business, rather than just correct "the mistake Bill made" I dont know, those to me are two different things entirely.

[michaelt 0]

Quote

To answer your question, I am troubled by this.
Bill and Kathy do not deserve the lawsuit that they are getting over this guy.

I do not find myself at lodi often enough as it's a great place to be, and I highly respect how Bill and Kathy run that place.

The indications are that the injured party referenced in this lawsuit was told several times not to do what he was doing when he got hurt.
I am sorry that the guy was injured so badly, but he had enough jumps in him to know what the deal is.

Also, I have a lodi ticket with me right here, it says right on it "THE PERSON USING THIS TICKET ASSUMES ALL RISK OF PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY"

Anyhow, I hope that this does not seriously effect The Parachute Center, it's management, or it's customers.

Thanks for your reply and taking the time to post, Pirate Mike. Glad you feel this way too.

[brettski74 0]

Quote

You should! Configuring for jump run can also help prevent injuries when you screw that up.

This approach works well in skydiving. You should pack your main carefully, maintain it well, and have a good body position/speed when you open - but you should still have a reserve if you screw that up. You should be able to judge your altitude by looking at the ground - but you should also have an altimeter to back yourself up. You should always pull at a safe altitude - but you might also want to use an AAD in case you screw up.

I agree that this approach works well in skydiving, but the question is not whether you agree with how Bill pilots his aircraft or runs his dropzone.

You might want to use an AAD, but there are still people who choose not to and yet more people who while having an AAD in their rig, choose to turn it off on certain types of jumps. If a jumper should die from a low pull or no pull incident due to no AAD or an AAD turned off, do we blame the jumper, or do we find someone else to blame like the pilot, dropzone, aircraft owner, AAD manufacturer, etc?

You should be mindful of the tail of the aircraft and exit accordingly, however, you might also want to do your jump from an aircraft with a higher tail and with a pilot who agrees to give you a cut and level the plane for exit just in case you screw up. However, if you choose to get on a plane where you know the pilot will not give you a cut or level the plane for exit... If you choose to get on a plane where the dangers of certain types of exits and the correct way to exit from an aircraft in a climbing configuration have been explained to you... If you choose to get on that plane and do that exit with a reasonable level of experience to be able to understand what a diving exit is and how to do one, then who is responsible if an injury happens?

[billvon 2,384]

>You might want to use an AAD, but there are still people who choose not to and
>yet more people who while having an AAD in their rig, choose to turn it off on
>certain types of jumps.

Agreed.

>If a jumper should die from a low pull or no pull incident due to no AAD or an AAD
>turned off, do we blame the jumper, or do we find someone else to blame like the
>pilot, dropzone, aircraft owner, AAD manufacturer, etc?

If the AAD did not contribute to the accident, we of course do not blame the AAD. If the AAD was on but failed to fire, or was off and fired anyway, or misfired at a bad time, then it may well have contributed to the fatality. That does not mean we sue the AAD manufacturer - but hopefully it does mean that we learn better how to jump with an AAD and/or the manufacturer fixes the issue that caused it.

A few years ago a swooper was killed when his AAD misfired in a swoop. Airtec fixed the problem for future swoopers by coming up with a swoop mode AAD. I am glad they did not adopt the "there's NOTHING WRONG with our AAD, it's all his fault!" angle.

Now, who was to BLAME for the incident, in a legal sense? The jumper. He exceeded the limits of the device, limits which had been published before. Who should fix the problem? Jumpers and the manufacturer.


> However, if you choose to get on a plane where you know the pilot will not give
> you a cut or level the plane for exit... If you choose to get on a plane where the
> dangers of certain types of exits and the correct way to exit from an aircraft in a
> climbing configuration have been explained to you... If you choose to get on
> that plane and do that exit with a reasonable level of experience to be able to
> understand what a diving exit is and how to do one, then who is responsible
> if an injury happens?

In a legal sense? The jumper.

Who is responsible for ensuring that, in the future, chances of this happening again are minimized? The pilot and the jumpers on his aircraft.

[ficus 0]

Quote

Who is responsible for ensuring that, in the future, chances of this happening again are minimized? The pilot and the jumpers on his aircraft.

Say a jumper comes in for a high performance landing, turns too low, fails to get back under his canopy before impacting the ground, and breaks himself or worse.

Should it have been the responsibility of the DZO/S&TA/whoever to disallow high performance landings in order to minimize this risk?

Of course, it was the jumper's decision to make that turn, and you can't physically prevent him from doing it, at least the first time he does it. But even with a level and cut, a sufficiently dumb or determined jumper could strike the tail, especially on a low-tail airplane like the 99.

[billvon 2,384]

>Should it have been the responsibility of the DZO/S&TA/whoever to disallow
>high performance landings in order to minimize this risk?

If it was caused by a traffic issue, and he could minimize the risk by separating high performance landings and standard landings - yes, he should consider disallowing high performance landings in the main landing area.

> But even with a level and cut, a sufficiently dumb or determined jumper
> could strike the tail, especially on a low-tail airplane like the 99.

Of course. And even with separate landing areas, a jumper could do a 270 into a lower performance parachute in the main landing area. There's only so much you can do. However, that does not mean that doing nothing is a good choice, either.

[ficus 0]

Quote

>Should it have been the responsibility of the DZO/S&TA/whoever to disallow
>high performance landings in order to minimize this risk?

If it was caused by a traffic issue, and he could minimize the risk by separating high performance landings and standard landings - yes, he should consider disallowing high performance landings in the main landing area.

Say it wasn't. The jumper has all the airspace and landing area to himself. Your line of reasoning indicates that the DZ could have helped to prevent this incident by banning HP landings, and therefore shares some of the blame for the jumper's error. Obviously you can't prevent everything, but just as obviously, DZs where swooping is not allowed are going to have fewer landing incidents.

Likewise, you could say that a DZ or pilot could help to prevent freefall collisions by only allowing solos. The argument would be that this is an unreasonable burden and that doing a cut and level on a low pass only costs a couple dollars, but where do you draw the line, and who gets to decide?

[BDashe 0]

Quote

but where do you draw the line, and who gets to decide?

Ficus: didnt you know Billv is THE Skygod? you're unsafe, not smart, and dangerous if you don't conform to his thought processes and extenuating circumstances. You should also know all of them before he makes them up to further his indefinable agenda. Billv, king of all trolls.

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

[billvon 2,384]

>Say it wasn't. The jumper has all the airspace and landing area to himself. Your
>line of reasoning indicates that the DZ could have helped to prevent this incident
> by banning HP landings, and therefore shares some of the blame for the jumper's
>error.

No.

Once again you are going with the "blame" thing. The jumper is, legally and morally, to blame. He's the one who screwed up.

But after, say, the third such incident, the DZO should start looking at why it's happening. Is there anything he can do? Perhaps tell the on-site gear rental place to not rent sub-150 canopies to jumpers with less than 500 jumps? Perhaps require a D license to swoop a small canopy? Perhaps move the landing area away from the 40 foot trees that are causing rotors during moderate winds?

A good DZO will consider such things. A bad DZO will say "not my fault; nothing to be done, just stupid skydivers."

>Likewise, you could say that a DZ or pilot could help to prevent freefall
>collisions by only allowing solos.

Correct! Or, perhaps, he could post an exit-separation chart by the door to help prevent them. He could institute a "RW out first" policy. He could tell everyone that it's OK to take a second pass if they're getting long, rather than crowd the group in front of them. He could ground anyone who consistently puts other jumpers at risk for freefall collisions.

>but where do you draw the line, and who gets to decide?

The DZO does. (Or people he passes such decisions to, like a manager or an S+TA.)

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

Quote

but where do you draw the line, and who gets to decide?

Ficus: didnt you know Billv is THE Skygod? you're unsafe, not smart, and dangerous if you don't conform to his thought processes and extenuating circumstances. You should also know all of them before he makes them up to further his indefinable agenda. Billv, king of all trolls.

OK, I'm gonna jump in here. You and everyone else are entitled to your opinions. However, everyone must abide by the rules. You are obviously emotionally involved with this topic and have demonstrated an inability to remain civil to those who have a differing opinion than yours. PAs will not be allowed, either play by the rules or get out of the pool.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[ficus 0]

Quote

Once again you are going with the "blame" thing. The jumper is, legally and morally, to blame. He's the one who screwed up.

OK, fair.

Quote

A good DZO will consider such things. A bad DZO will say "not my fault; nothing to be done, just stupid skydivers."

I don't think it's so black and white.

At Lodi, someone pounded in under their Katana and Bill decided he had had enough, and now turns over 90 degrees are not allowed at Lodi. The Lodi jumpers are creative and talented and are doing some pretty impressive stuff with 90s, but essentially one person's error cost a bunch of other people their own choice.

What do you think will happen to $5 hop and pops if Bill has to cut and level the airplane because some guy can't roll out low from the door? Thousands upon thousands of these exits are done without incident. It's just not that hard.

Quote

>but where do you draw the line, and who gets to decide?

The DZO does. (Or people he passes such decisions to, like a manager or an S+TA.)

OK, good, this we can agree on.

But maybe the DZO sees this the way I think both you and I would see someone jumping up on a normal jump run and striking the tail. A willful (or dumb enough to be effectively willful) error on the jumper's part.

[billvon 2,384]

>What do you think will happen to $5 hop and pops if Bill has to cut and level
>the airplane because some guy can't roll out low from the door?

He might increase it to $6 out of spite. Per Diverdriver, who knows way more about jumpship ops than I do, it's an unnoticeable increase in fuel costs.

This may be all academic anyway. Per a PM that I got, Lodi has already implemented a cut for low exits. Can anyone confirm that, and what the new price is?

[pashakiev 0]

Does anyone have information on what condition is the guy in? / broken back (spine?)

+1 / Too bad that Bill has to deal with this. Lawsuits and Skydiving don't go well together... We all do know what we are up to when we put rig on...
If anyone knows extend of the damage... please post.

Blues.
PV

Less Bitching / More Jumping..... Please?

[mswallin13 0]

I think your point is based on the experience and thought process of a seasoned jumper who enjoys the availability of H&P's at an unbeatable price. And that's great and a fine example of what a free-market economy can provide. Further, Bill D has the right to operate his DZ however he wants. And I don't think most here are suggesting that his choices are wildly irresponsible or otherwise evil. They are simply choices that add some additional risk (how much is certainly debatable, and mitigation measures are available to those that have the experience to know them) to jumps in order to provide the benefit of inexpensive tickets. A deal that many think is fair and choose to knowingly and willingly accept.

However, Lodi is perhaps not the best choice for newer jumpers who don't yet know what they don't know. As Bill V has suggested, when I had 50 to 100 jumps I probably would not have fully grasped the risks I was exposed to the first time I exited from a climbing 99, having come from a DZ where level passes are the norm.

In the end, this lawsuit is bad for the sport in general and I have no sympathy for the jumper given the opportunities he was given to exit properly on his second jump. However, I don't really have any sympathy for Bill D either. The position he's in now is based, at least in part, on the choices he made as DZO. Were I in his position, I can't believe that I would have made the same choice based on the inevitability of lawsuits in this country (warranted or not) and the ease/simplicity of a means to reduce that risk.

Matthew Wallin
C-37899

[tetra316 0]

Quote

>What do you think will happen to $5 hop and pops if Bill has to cut and level
>the airplane because some guy can't roll out low from the door?

He might increase it to $6 out of spite. Per Diverdriver, who knows way more about jumpship ops than I do, it's an unnoticeable increase in fuel costs.

If a cut really is unoticeable in terms of cost why then is the average hop & pop more like $12-15? I don't think it's unoticeable.

[brettski74 0]

Quote

If a cut really is unoticeable in terms of cost why then is the average hop & pop more like $12-15? I don't think it's unoticeable.

How much is a slot to full altitude at such dropzones?

I have heard DZOs comment that operationally, the cost to them for providing a low pass for a large turbine aircraft is no lower than a slot to full altitude, since there are generally always full altitude slots on the plane anyway and the additional pass at the lower altitude can sometimes even mean marginally higher costs in terms of aircraft maintenance and fuel burn. At some dropzones I've jumped at, the price difference for a low exit is less than 20% of the full altitude price. I'm not sure that you can rely on slot prices to reflect the relative cost to the DZO or aircraft owner for providing the lift.

[tetra316 0]

Our full altitude prices are $21 and a hop & pop is $14. I've had dzo's tell me that hop & pops actually cost more since they level the plane.

I am confused about Bills comment that the extra cost with a cut for a hop & pop is "unnoticeable."

[brettski74 0]

Quote

I am confused about Bills comment that the extra cost with a cut for a hop & pop is "unnoticeable."

He was referring to an earlier post by diverdriver about level & cut vs not.

[jumpwally 0]

i can't believe people actually believe that type of BS, its no worse than flying into a headwind ...are you a pilot ? have you refueled before
? have you done the calcs,,,DiverDriver flys a commercial jet,,,i'm sure he gets a lot of pressure from the corporate office to fly fuel efficiently and he's got tons of Otter flying, so i'll tend to believe him over heresay about some DZO comment in passing.......When DZO's start to get tons of Management Awards for Business greatness then i'll be inclined to listen to them,,,untill them for the most part its a glorified hot dog stand...

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[billvon 2,384]

>If a cut really is unoticeable in terms of cost why then is the average hop & pop
>more like $12-15?

Because most DZ's charge more.

>I don't think it's unoticeable.

The fuel cost is not noticeable per DiverDriver, who has been flying Otters for decades. It doesn't mean that your DZO will give you cheap jumps of course.

[tetra316 0]

Quote

i can't believe people actually believe that type of BS, its no worse than flying into a headwind ...are you a pilot ? have you refueled before
? have you done the calcs,,,DiverDriver flys a commercial jet,,,i'm sure he gets a lot of pressure from the corporate office to fly fuel efficiently and he's got tons of Otter flying, so i'll tend to believe him over heresay about some DZO comment in passing.......When DZO's start to get tons of Management Awards for Business greatness then i'll be inclined to listen to them,,,untill them for the most part its a glorified hot dog stand...

So you are saying that it does NOT cost more to level a plane for a hop & pop? Just wondering since the consensus is that it does cost more hence hop & pop prices everywhere but Lodi reflect this. That or dzo's are just money grabbing theives

[tetra316 0]

Quote

>If a cut really is unoticeable in terms of cost why then is the average hop & pop
>more like $12-15?

Because most DZ's charge more.

>I don't think it's unoticeable.

The fuel cost is not noticeable per DiverDriver, who has been flying Otters for decades. It doesn't mean that your DZO will give you cheap jumps of course.

Alrighty, then. So basically all the dzo's I've heard say hop & pops cost more, are lying. Very nice

[billvon 2,384]

> So basically all the dzo's I've heard say hop & pops cost more, are lying.

I didn't claim that; neither did Diverdriver.

The FUEL COST is negligible for the cut alone. Here's how that can happen:

Plane climbs and turns onto jump run. Plane continues climbing until a few seconds before green light. Pilot throttles back, configures flaps if applicable, and turns on the green light. As soon as the jumper exits he powers back up, retracts flaps and continues the climb. Done, with a minuscule amount of fuel wasted.

How much fuel wasted? Well, let's make the following assumptions:

Otter with close to full load, 20min to altitude, 25gal per load, fuel price $4/gal
Everyone is going to altitude except for 2 hop and pops
Time from cut to return to full power 10 seconds
Throttle setting approx 1/2 climb power during cut
Fuel used: .1 gal
Cost: $0.40
Additional cost per jumper to cover fuel: $0.20

The TOTAL COST might be much higher. Here's how that can happen:

Plane climbs and turns onto jump run. For some reason the H+P people want to get out at exactly 4000 feet. So he stops climbing 2 minutes out to arrive at the exit point at the right altitude. Then he has to go on a hold because he timed it poorly and the other Otter is dropping. So he waits another 3 minutes before dropping the two jumpers. Total cost: $24, or $12 per jumper. Plus which, now he's wasted 5 minutes and he can't make the last tandem load of the day, which costs him $300.

That, however, is a procedural issue, not an issue with cuts. That's just poor planning.

[popsjumper 2]

We manage to do $15 H&Ps from 5K, with a cut, in an Otter, no problem. DZO is still eating well.

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