Tandem Doomsday Scenario

[skydived19006 4]

Rumor has it that Bill Booth has been heard stating “Another incident like that (referring to the student falling out of the harness in Ohio) could result in the end of tandem skydiving.

I’ve given this some thought, and am curious how this doomsday scenario could/would play out. Is Bill thinking that the FAA would step in and illegalize tandem skydiving? Or, is the thinking that all manufacturers for one reason or another (like a suit forcing them into bankruptcy/reorganization) would walk away from civilian tandem gear?

I would think that for tandem to simply “go away”, it would have to be due to government action. If for instance Strong Enterprises, UPT (Vector/Sigma), Parachute Laboratories Inc. (Racer), as well as all the canopy manufacturers walked away from civilian tandem, it wouldn’t instantly shut down tandem in the USA. I’ve been jumping Eclipse tandem gear for nearly 10 years without factory support. Spare parts would virtually instantly be an issue. As I understand the manufacturers are obligated to support their gear for 10 years? If they all closed out their businesses (reorganized to support sport gear and military?) obviously they would not be supporting the gear in the field (such as was the fate of Stunts/Eclipse).

Would American DZs have the option of using foreign manufactured gear? Could a foreign manufacturer start manufacturing for instance knock off SE/Racer/Sigma/Vector drogues?

Were tandem skydiving to be eliminated, it would most certainly change the landscape as we now know it. The vast majority of turbine aircraft would go bye bye. I’d think that many DZOs would simply fold up their tents. DZs would revert to what things looked like in the late 70s/early 80s, small mom and pop DZs and clubs for the most part. I’d think that a few large operations would survive somewhat as they do today. SD AZ doesn’t seem to survive from tandem revenue for the most part.

What do you think? Maybe Bill Booth will share his thoughts.

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[MarkM 0]

The DZs I started at in 2000 didn't do tandems. I'd see the places sometimes put out 10-20 SL students a day out of a 182. It was in Indiana, so they didn't have or need turbines but they seemed to operate pretty well. They weren't mom and pop clubs and they didn't operate in some "back in the 80's" style. One DZ was actually very progressive, they were putting students out on BOC pullouts when most everyone else was still using BOC ripcords.

Maybe we'd see fewer otters and more caravans at the "big" DZs. Boogies would be a bigger deal since they'd, again, be the place to go for bigger aircraft.

[skydived19006 4]

Some people would still obviously still make a first skydive. The DZ I started at trained only Static Line (as in no tandem) up to 1999, it was a "mom and pop" DZ. The DZ I now run is still a mom and pop DZ with one 182. We do three times as many first jump students as did the Lyons DZ. So yes, skydiving would go on, but student traffic and revenue would dramatically be reduced, I'd guess by at least 50%, more than likely more than 2/3rds. Obviously just conjecture.

All of that though is somewhat off topic (thought I started it). I'm primarily interested in the death of civilian tandem skydiving in the USA.

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[TheCaptain 2]

I would guess it would be more from a legal stand point, if a legal precedent is set that the waivers do not sign away the students rights and that the DZO & Instructor can be found liable for almost anything. I think that would make most tandem operations go away IMHO.

Kirk
He's dead Jim

[gearless_chris 1]

The dz I started at did static line only, until 2004, when they started tandems also. They also used to put the fun jumpers ahead of the students on manifest. It seemed like most of the students would stick around after their jump back then too. They even used to have 8 way Friday when the students were told to stay home and the second or third 182 would come out for formation loads all night. Once they started cutting fun jumpers for tandems the fun jumpers quit coming around as much, you'll be lucky to get a 4 way together now. I think you'd still see turbine dz's, but they'd be dropping IAD or S/L students instead.

"If it wasn't easy stupid people couldn't do it", Duane.

My momma said I could be anything I wanted when I grew up, so I became an a$$hole.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

I would guess it would be more from a legal stand point, if a legal president is set that the waivers do not sign away the students rights and that the DZO & Instructor can be found liable for almost anything. I think that would make most tandem operations go away IMHO.

That would make most student operations go away.

I don't see that happening, there is already some precedent set that the wavier is solid under certain circumstances.
Negligence, as demonstrated by not following accepted procedures (like those mandated by the manufacturer) isn't necessarily one of those.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[skyjumpenfool 2]

Another aspect of this.... There's a lot of tandem instructors, videographers, etc. making a living, or at very least, supporting their skydiving habit by throwing students out of the airplane. The number of skydivers financially capable of making 4-500 jumps a year would decrease. Overall experience level in the sport would suffer.

But then again, as we see in nature, the strong will survive well into the future! The big question is, what’ll they find when they get there?

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

[redramdriver 0]

Quote

waivers do not sign away the students rights and that the DZO & Instructor can be found liable for almost anything

IMHO its not that they could be found liable for almost anything. It's that they should be held liable and accountable for their own mistakes. This, unlike the Strong suit, is what I am personally thinking. Ted didn't have anything to do with the irresponsible and inappropriate use of the gear his company made, just the simple mistake in selling it to them. That is his liability, and should be the end of his liability. IMHO.

So, you bring your beer?

Its 5 o'clock somewhere
POPS #9344

[TheCaptain 2]

I agree with you about the current law suit, but what I was basically saying is I think the Tandem industry would fall if the likely hood of lawsuits goes up too much. We live in a sue happy enviroment where alot of people are looking to spin the lawsuit wheel if there is a chance they could win big regardless if they actually have a legitimate case or not.

Kirk
He's dead Jim

[tigra 0]

Quote

I would guess it would be more from a legal stand point, if a legal precedent is set that the waivers do not sign away the students rights and that the DZO & Instructor can be found liable for almost anything. I think that would make most tandem operations go away IMHO.

Even the most "airtight" waiver cannot sign away someone else's rights. The current lawsuit isn't setting any kind of legal precedent, at least not as far as the waiver is concerned.

[piisfish 135]

Quote

We live in a sue happy enviroment where alot of people are looking to spin the lawsuit wheel if there is a chance they could win big regardless if they actually have a legitimate case or not.

send all tandem students to Europe

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[GLIDEANGLE 1]

Quote

As I understand the manufacturers are obligated to support their gear for 10 years?

How so?

Was that in the a contract between the manufacturer and buyer?

Is there an oblication incurred through the TSO process?

My bet is that they DO NOT have that obligation and can walk away at any time.

Caveat Emptor.

The choices we make have consequences, for us & for others!

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

As I understand the manufacturers are obligated to support their gear for 10 years?

How so?

Was that in the a contract between the manufacturer and buyer?

Is there an oblication incurred through the TSO process?

My bet is that they DO NOT have that obligation and can walk away at any time.

Caveat Emptor.

Certainly a bankrupt manufacturer has no obligations.

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

As I understand the manufacturers are obligated to support their gear for 10 years?

How so?

Was that in the a contract between the manufacturer and buyer?

Is there an oblication incurred through the TSO process?

My bet is that they DO NOT have that obligation and can walk away at any time.

Caveat Emptor.

Certainly a bankrupt manufacturer has no obligations.

You may notice that I ended that sentence with a question mark. That little tidbit came to me through hearsay.

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I have heard similar things for manufacturers in general but non existent corporations are no more accountable than dead people.

[riggerrob 558]

Would you be willing to buy tandem spare parts sewn in Honduras or Canada or China?

With fewer labels, it would be more difficult for lawyers to launch a lawsuit against an accessory manufacturer.

Quality would be almost as good, but the manufacturer would be too far from American lawyers to make it profitable to launch a lawsuit.

[feuergnom 22]

so what do you suggest: that gear manufacturers move their businesses outside the u.s. and flip the bird on lawyers?

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[skyjumpenfool 2]

Quote

so what do you suggest: that gear manufacturers move their businesses outside the u.s. and flip the bird on lawyers?

That wouldn't matter, the blood sucking lawyers would just go after the next deep pocket on the $$Food chain. They've known for years that it doesn't matter if you win or lose the law suit. What matters is what it'll cost anyone to fight the suit. They're not after a win, their after a $ettlement!

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

[rhys 0]

Quote

so what do you suggest: that gear manufacturers move their businesses outside the u.s. and flip the bird on lawyers?

Yep, move all Usa's manufacturing offshore to protect US manufacturers from US law.
US litigation is out of hand, the human instinct of 'GREED" is not going to go away, so unless you deal with your laws, you will continue to have the problem.

In this case there is a valid reason for litigation but it should be made against the incompetent instructor, not the manufacturer.

If Tandems were banned in USA it would be a good thing for us in other countries as more exclusive products are higher in demand.

It will be sad 'IF' it ever happened, but what is sadder is the USA's relutance to see its own faults!

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

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

Quote

As I understand the manufacturers are obligated to support their gear for 10 years?

You may notice that I ended that sentence with a question mark. That little tidbit came to me through hearsay.

Auto manufacturers are required to provide parts support for 10 years after discontinuing a model. You can still get parts for an Eldorado from a Caddy dealer, for example.

And that's if the manufacturer is still in operation.

AFAIK that's the only such requirement.

But I could be wrong.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[redramdriver 0]

Its not just the tandem industry, its life in general has cost the people of this country far to much by the greediness of those in a position to let it continue.

So, you bring your beer?

Its 5 o'clock somewhere
POPS #9344