BPA Membership tops 150 pounds

[skytash 0]

Quote

I afraid I don't agree with you concerning your statement that the BPA enable the UK population to jump(ie... no BPA no jumping). It more of a case where they have leveraged themeselves into a position where they are a middleman between the CAA and jumpers. They have effectively made themselves nessessary throughout the past as a means of furthering influence and individual interest.

I would imagine pride has something to do with it as well(British standards must be superior to all others, of course, and of course other qualifications should not be recoginised in the UK).

There was a great deal of jumping before the BPA, and non BPA DZ's were pushed out of operation by a fairly aggressive legal campaign by the BPA, even grandfather rights were eventually shifted.

The US model does seem to operate with much less waste. If an organisation is forced to be relevant, then it tends to be. Neccessity etc...

I really have become cynical...

I guess I should have phrased my questio better. If I didn't pay my membership to the BPA, I wouldn't be able to jump at any of the current UK dropzones. The next question, which I think you are alluding to, is, can someone set up a DZ without support from the BPA?

I've never tried it and don't want to, and my question is whether it is possible these days. For example, could I get the appropriate marking on a map to prevent others in my airspace? What permisions do I need to set up a runway? Would I want to run a business without insurance in the event that a skydiver hurts themselves and sues me? Without insurance that would be 100% certain bankruptcy to cover legal costs alone, forget any possible damages that may be awarded.

I know that there was skydiving before the BPA, question is, did any of those jumpers even think about suing someone for damages if they got themselves hurt? probably not. In those days, before charity tandems etc, skydiving was considered even more extreme and a judge would probably have thrown it out of court. Not anymore I'm afraid. Most of the increase in costs (as said by others) is down to insurance. And none of the current operators are prepared to operate without it and I don't blame them.

I had some pretty strong views on what I thought should be explored before the AGM. I then found they had all been explored and found to be of little benefit to bring down the cost of insurance.

upshot - don't sue anyone in the sport and make sure that none of the tandem passengers or first jump students do either and we may see a reduction in the costs.

tash

Don't ever save anything for a special occasion. Being alive is a special occasion. Avril Sloe

[pincheck 0]

isn't that the truth or so i seem to be finding out . i just don't get how so many countries in the world are so much cheaper than us. sometimes i feel i am banging my head off a brick wall and its beginning to piss me off. i only took a interest this year perhaps if more people took a active role then they would have it the way they wanted.

Billy-Sonic Haggis Flickr-Fun

[Legs 0]

I note there are two claims that are driving up the insurance this year.

Both are experienced skydivers sueing other skydivers.

I think this should be banned. We take part in a high risk sport. Sh1t happens.

If you want financial recompense in the case of an accident you should have personal extreme sport cover, or hope to sell your video to the highest bidder.

edited to add "experienced"

With love in Christ

[bigway 4]

You think this should be banned? please explain the situation and circumstances to us all about these to claims that made you come to the judgement that this should be banned?

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[Legs 0]

excuse me if I dont rush back with the full facts.

I believe I know the facts but they are are subject to legal action.

A fact is that at least one of these is a collision in freefall.

I suspect what drives the legal actions is not the sense that anyone was guilty and the other partys innoccent, but financial recompense is being claimed against the clubs, due to innability to work and lack of personal injury insurance.

If after you have an accident, you will need financial support to live, then please get personal injury insurance, dont count on the third party liability insurance to sue your club / fellow skydivers with.

Just my view

With love in Christ

[shropshire 0]

<>

100% agree

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[mr2mk1g 10]

I was under the impression that one of the claims arose out of first jump, (or very very low jump number), RAPS student who broke her back on landing leading to permanent disability. Sure it sounds to most of us who have heard the rumors that it was all her fault... but it'll take time to demonstrate that to her lawyers or a court, if indeed that is actually the case.

The problem is that you simply cannot simply waive liability in the UK for personal injury, not even for member on member liability. It's illegal.

If you want that to change it's not the BPA or CAA you need to speak to, it's the Government. I can tell you now though that you're not going to get very far.

One small change that has happened recently which I hope will alter the balance a little in our favor is a tiny provision tucked away in the Compensation Act 2006, an act which otherwise deals with mesothelioma and asbestosis litigation.

A little amendment, (which incidentally apparently broke the record for the fastest passage through Parliament), provides that when a court is considering liability it must have regard to whether or not a finding that the defendant should have done something differently would effectively prevent a desirable activity from taking place at all.

Now I've not yet seen any relevant cases referring to this act come to court yet, (it's simply too new), but there certainly is the potential for it to help defend litigation against BPA insurance holders. It all depends on how open the courts are to actively using the provision and how tightly they interpret the meaning of "a desirable activity".

Time will tell.

[Legs 0]

This is interesting.

I wonder if there was a compulsion to have personal accident insurance. The financial motivation for litigation will reduce, thereby reducing the number and size of litigous claims?

To this end I encourage everyone to look into personal accident cover. There's what seems to be a good advert for one such policy in the Mag this month.

With love in Christ

[yoink 321]

Quote

... provides that when a court is considering liability it must have regard to whether or not a finding that the defendant should have done something differently would effectively prevent a desirable activity from taking place at all.

My brain struggles with legal-ese. Any chance you could give me a hypothetical translation of this?

Is it a 'you were doing something you knew to be dangerous, so there's a limit on the liability' clause?

[pincheck 0]

i believe Gary its a mute point as in the UK you can't waiver that right away. Personal insurance if allowed probably wouldn't make people less ready to sue the Bpa, i think that would only work if it was the only insurance. I mean by that no Bpa insurance but everyone with individually sought insurance . we have and that would mean separate prices for every one dz/instructors/displays, Normal jumpers, Too many vested interests as already mention for that to go through

Billy-Sonic Haggis Flickr-Fun

[bigway 4]

I think everyone has a right to claim and that the fingers should not be pointed at these claims as it is their right as it may one day be one of us who NEEDS to make that claim.

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[Legs 0]

I agree BIGWAY,

Although I feel the people in the thread are misunderstanding the difference between third party liability insurance, which each member of the BPA enjoys and Personal accident cover. Personal insurance to help you manage after an accident.

I dont want the comment on the current claims. But on the effect of each skydiver purchasing their own cover for personal accident (as well as the third party cover included in the BPA membership)

With love in Christ

[pincheck 0]

Ah but then there would most likely be a argument about which insurance company pays up for any incident i would guess leaving the person who had it to wait for them to decide and we can all guess that hell would freeze over first there

Billy-Sonic Haggis Flickr-Fun

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Is it a 'you were doing something you knew to be dangerous, so there's a limit on the liability' clause?

No, quite the opposite actually.

Before the Act, (to cut a very long story short), if a Judge found that if the packer, rigger, DZO, CCI, Pilot or instructor, (etc), should have done X, Y or Z and that if they had then the accident would have been prevented, then the BPA insurance fund could take a hit.

After the Act, once the Judge has found the above they can go on to ask themself a further question, (assuming parachuting as a sport is a "desirable activity", (there's simply no guidance yet on what that is – recreational sports certainly could fall under the heading).

The Judge can now ask themself: "Will a requirement to do X, Y or Z mean that it becomes impossible to conduct sport parachuting, to a certain extent, or in a particular way, or will people be discouraged from undertaking functions in connection with sport parachuting?"

If the answer to that question is: "Yes – no one's ever going to want to pack a parachute again if I find this packer in front of me today negligent because they didn't do X". Then the judge can take that into account and find in favor of the BPA insured, when prior to the Act they would have found against the BPA insured.

I must stress though that all of this is still speculative - there's no guarantee that skydiving would even be considered a "desirable activity" and at the end of the day, even though the Judge has statutory authority for considering the impact of any findings on the sport as a whole, they can still quite easily find in favor of the sorry looking crippled claimant in front of them who's simply asking for a big, rich, faceless insurance company to buy him a wheelchair and a bag to piss in.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

I wonder if there was a compulsion to have personal accident insurance.

This won't work, for two reasons.

Firstly you're simply replacing one form of expense for another.

OK everyone has personal accident insurance because it's a BPA requirement, the BPA third party liability insurance cost goes down dramatically as no one needs to sue BPA members because they simply claim off their own policy.

Great, I no longer have to pay £100 for third party insurance as that only costs me £60. I do however now also have to buy personal accident insurance which costs me £60. Total cost for the year is £120... I'm now paying more.

Secondly, the personal accident insurance contract will have a subrogation right in it allowing the insurer to sue in your name. Fine, you're not suing the instructor who dispatched you, but your insurance company will in order to recover the money they paid to you.

[Legs 0]

Quote

Secondly, the personal accident insurance contract will have a subrogation right in it allowing the insurer to sue in your name. Fine, you're not suing the instructor who dispatched you, but your insurance company will in order to recover the money they paid to you.

Good point, well made I can't see an out to this.

With love in Christ

[skinnyshrek 0]

why don't you all just sell up and move to the USA, granted you don't get the good food over here but hey, you get to make skydives a lot cheaper and have nicer weather.. USPA is also a cheaper membership

http://www.skydivethefarm.com

do you realize that when you critisize people you dont know over the internet, you become part of a growing society of twats? ARE YOU ONE OF THEM?

[skytash 0]

you got a spare stash of green cards for us?

tash

Don't ever save anything for a special occasion. Being alive is a special occasion. Avril Sloe

[skinnyshrek 0]

Quote

you got a spare stash of green cards for us?

tash

Sure...They are called I-94s they are valid for 90 days. Who knows, you may forget to catch the return flight

http://www.skydivethefarm.com

do you realize that when you critisize people you dont know over the internet, you become part of a growing society of twats? ARE YOU ONE OF THEM?

[skytash 0]

Quote

Quote

you got a spare stash of green cards for us?

tash

Sure...They are called I-94s they are valid for 90 days. Who knows, you may forget to catch the return flight

but doesn't the Immigration Service then arrange another return flight, that I then also have to pay for and after that the I-94 won't work ever again?

tash

Don't ever save anything for a special occasion. Being alive is a special occasion. Avril Sloe

[bigway 4]

I got myself a muselim visa somehow, it gives me 6 months at a time over there for 10 years. I do not have to stay away for a certain amount of time either. Why i have a muselim visa i have no idea

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[skinnyshrek 0]

can you work on that?

http://www.skydivethefarm.com

do you realize that when you critisize people you dont know over the internet, you become part of a growing society of twats? ARE YOU ONE OF THEM?

[bigway 4]

only in a church or a mosque.

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[gjhdiver 0]

Quote

ldn't be able to jump at any of the current UK dropzones. The next question, which I think you are alluding to, is, can someone set up a DZ without support from the BPA?

They used to, and the BPA didn't like it one bit. That's why I asked if anyone remembered A1 skydiving.......

[dorbie 0]

Quote

As taken from the BPA website:

"Full BPA Membership for 07/08 is now J152.10"



I thought there was supposed to be an EGM for any significant increase?

so a 30% increase isn't significant?

The BPA makes me so bloody angry sometimes.

All of the following is just my opinion of course:

Isn't this related to two arsehole skydivers who fucked up then sued each other and your insurance company has to pay through the nose no matter what the outcome of the case is?

(Can you opt for an insurance policy that doesn't cover jumpers for injury to each other?)

Or was it some negligent fuckwit who swapped a worn out ratty old main you wouldn't want to jump with a reserve of the same model to save a few quid and killed a tandem passenger?

I understand that in the UK you can't sign a waiver of liability to stop these kind of repercussions in future (although I doubt a waiver would have excused the worn out used reserve here), and the place is turning sue happy, you're directly paying for this even in a country where a basic level of health care is free when you injure yourself.

It must suck to be caught between idiots who use end of life canopies as reserves, selfish sue happy fuckups, a legal system that leaves you no options and an insurance system that really doesn't enjoy discovering new and interesting ways in which British skydivers can cost them a small fortune.