Is someone who is selling a canopy responsible for who it is sold to?

[billvon 2,434]

>A person goes out fishing in a small boat when small craft advisories have
> been posted. They get themselves in over their head and into a
>dangerous situation, why does the Coast Guard have to risk themselves to
>save this person from their on stupidity?

They don't have to; they do if they can do it safely. But I'm not talking about saving someone by putting yourself at risk. If it was your friend taking out their dinghy during a small craft advisory, wouldn't you tell them to not do it, that it was a bad idea? Or would you just clap them on the back and say "Go for it!"

> But, somehow the stupid idiot that went out in small-craft advisory
>weather is not at fault?

It's his fault; if there is anyone to sue, it's him. But again, I would hope you might tell him that taking his boat out was a bad idea. That might prevent the whole coast-guard-rescue, dead-friend, family lawsuit thing from ever happening in the first place.

>We can put out all the warnings, the jumpers still do stupid things, then we
>end up risking ourselves to save them afterwards.

I've never really put myself at risk to save anyone else. Even during the (very unusual) thing last year at Rantoul, I was still open around 2000 feet. I don't think anyone expects you to topdock their canopy and steer them away from danger, just to give them the advice that they need. Sometimes they are unable to listen but I think you have to try.

[crutch 0]

They don't have to; they do if they can do it safely. But I'm not talking about saving someone by putting yourself at risk.

Quote

My friend the Coast Guard pilot would venture to argue with you on this one next time he his flying his helicopter in gail force winds trying to rescue some yahoo.

***If it was your friend taking out their dinghy during a small craft advisory, wouldn't you tell them to not do it, that it was a bad idea?

This is what I am talking about....if you try to convince him it is a bad idea and he goes and does it anyway, is your conscience clear? The worse problem happens when he survives and comes back with a lot of fish. Our broken skydiver, I would venture to bet wasn't on his first jump with that canopy and the 20# of lead and on top of that was being advised by an "expert".

The problem is the inherent nature of the sport causes it to attract people with large egos that are willing to push the envelope. Sometimes, somes good things come out of it (square parachutes,freeflying, skysurfing, tandems etc.). Other times people get hurt and even die. Drawing the line becomes more and more difficult all the time as the sport becomes more and more mainstream. We start to lose respect for how dangerous it really is. We need to spread the word when a drop zone is letting people hurt themselves and make sure we steer potential customers elsewhere, that is how you change things. We are seeing more and more drop zones that don't want to deal with experienced jumpers for this very reason.

They are being advised not to go out, but do it anyway. Who pays, you and I. To tell you the truth, if I were to ever start a drop zone, I would be hard pressed to let any skydiver I didn't personally know or teach jump there.

So through my ranting and raving we are right back to where we started, what do you do? I can see both sides, but that fine line between morally right and wrong is tough. Being able to sleep at night when someone I taught does something stupid is hard. It is hard because I failed to teach my student respect for the sport while having fun!

blue skies,

art

[relyon 0]

Quote

... I don't think anyone expects you to topdock their canopy and steer them away from danger, just to give them the advice that they need. ...

True, but there are those times when it's really nice they do because advice alone just isn't enough ...

Bob

[FrogNog 1]

Re that pic: slide it in!

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[zulu 0]

I would have to say yes. My reason is in my situation I have just put my complete system up for sale. Its a sabre 150 with an H-modification. I have had jumpers with less than 50 jumps with cash in hand begging me to sell them my rig. Money isnt everything. I told them that I would not feel comfortable because of their experience level. I would feel like the lowest piece of shit if I was to one day read about them in parachutist, just because I wanted to make a buck. I would rather go to jail before I set someone up for this type of failure.
zulu

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

Wow, dude, it's a Sabre, not a Vengeance. Is there something about the H mod I don't know about? Far as I knew, Sabre's are one of the safest newbie canopies. Were these jumpers like 200+lbs or something? To each his/her own. Do what you're comfortable with.

Angela.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

Furthermore, stupid moves can be performed under any canopy with many results being close to the same

I disagree. Try a stupid move w/ a Sabre 230, then try the exact same stupid move with my old VX-60. Let me know how it turns out. I think you'll find a significant difference.

Derek

There was a stupid move made with a large Sabre 2 (I've heard from one person it was a 170, in the Incidents forum it was listed as a 190) at Hinkley last weekend that resulted in the jumpers death. He put it into a full stall below the hard deck, and let up only one toggle - it put the canopy into line twists that he did not have enough time to recover from.

So yes, a stupid move is a stupid move no matter what the canopy size is.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[zulu 0]

Quote

Wow, dude, it's a Sabre, not a Vengeance. Is there something about the H mod I don't know about? Far as I knew, Sabre's are one of the safest newbie canopies. Were these jumpers like 200+lbs or something? To each his/her own. Do what you're comfortable with.

Angela.

Angela,
These jumpers had less than 50 jumps and most of them are heavier than me by at least 30lbs. I just wouldnt feel right selling them the rig.
zulu

[pccoder 0]

We are all responsible for our own actions. However; with that being said, I would feel a personal responsibility to ensure I am not expediting someone on their trip to the grave.

PcCoder.net

[pccoder 0]

Come on people. Let's remember this is an extreme sport, not shooting a gun or driving a car. The more we allow stupid things to happen, the more likely this sport becomes governed and regulated by the federal government. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would much rather it stay the way it is today. Let's all quit coping out and saying we don't have any responsibility for who we sell to, cause eventually you'll have to give a piss test, donate some semen, get bloodwork, have your credit checked and provide proof of citizenship before you're even allowed on the plane. So, let's try to be realistic.

PcCoder.net

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Come on people. Let's remember this is an extreme sport, not shooting a gun or driving a car. The more we allow stupid things to happen, the more likely this sport becomes governed and regulated by the federal government. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would much rather it stay the way it is today. Let's all quit coping out and saying we don't have any responsibility for who we sell to, cause eventually you'll have to give a piss test, donate some semen, get bloodwork, have your credit checked and provide proof of citizenship before you're even allowed on the plane. So, let's try to be realistic.

*that* doesn't sound very realistic to me.

Fatalities have been essentially flat for a long time without any attention. As long as the tandem customers are coming down alright, any more regulation seems unlikely.

What gets notice is when participants start hurting and killing others - see PWCs and apparently kite surfers. This latter group has so many assholes that a coworker who was about to buy a full setup decided there was no point investing into a sport that will be banned from every waterway within the next few years.

I'd worry much more about those close encounters in the sky (between jump planes and other GA) that have been talked about recently.

[lowie 0]

Excuse my inexperience here but is there maybe a cutoff where you wouldnt bother checking. In the case of a Sabre 170 or simillar being sold, if the person has just got their A license then they are either ready to fly it or not too far off so could fly it in the near future. In this case why bother checking up. Their jump no.s will be so low that the DZ will be keeping tabs on them anyway.

On the other hand a canopy such as a 120 stilleto could be unsafe in the hands of a jumper with 100+ jumps who would not necessarily be checked by DZ.

[billvon 2,434]

>if you try to convince him it is a bad idea and he goes and does it
>anyway, is your conscience clear?

Mine would be, if I gave it my best shot. If I said nothing I'd feel bad about my inaction. If I sold him gas for his boat, and encouraged him to go in other ways, I'd feel _really_ bad.

> I can see both sides, but that fine line between morally right and wrong is
> tough. Being able to sleep at night when someone I taught does
>something stupid is hard. It is hard because I failed to teach my
>student respect for the sport while having fun!

Yep, but all you can do is teach them well and help them to make the right decisions (and maybe more importantly _not_ help them make bad ones.)

[pccoder 0]

Quote

*that* doesn't sound very realistic to me.

Our government just lives for reasons to regulate everything. That is how they get to collect money (taxes). Bring attention, and yes it will happen regardless of who is bouncing, and it will get regulated.

PcCoder.net

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Our government just lives for reasons to regulate everything. That is how they get to collect money (taxes). Bring attention, and yes it will happen regardless of who is bouncing, and it will get regulated.

Government isn't this monolithic entity. It's full of individuals with their own beliefs, motivations, and occasional god complexes. Saving 5 people a year isn't really on their horizon unless it is to get rid of something they don't like.

If a congressman's son died, or some little kid (unlikely with the age requirement), you'd get some attention in the form of a bill. But without strong support for it, it will just die on the vine. So long as we don't kill non jumpers, whuffos don't care what happens to us. We're doing the activity that is the classic definition of 'assumption of risk.'

Regulating us gains a bureaucrat very little - what's their incentive. If, otoh, we become a pain to bigger aviation groups (and I suspect pilots tend to have more money), then there is a reason - to make that other group happier. So let's play nice with everyone else.

Mountain climbers are regulated largely because they sometimes need to be rescued ($$$), and facilities in the form of roads and outhouses have to be put in. So they are required to pay for a permit. But I've yet to see one that actually requires them to be trained or use safer climbing practices. Our government is far less paternalistic than most countries.

[hanknotdan 0]

Didn't vote since the choices were a bit slim and didn't really capture the issue.(Kind of like presidential elections although I vote in those as fuction of self-defense.)

I do not believe that the seller has a responsibility to check the ability of a buyer. License sure, just as a gun dealer should check permits. But then it only takes an A to jump anything you want.

That being said, I do in fact perform due diligence in reference to ability before selling something. That's simply because I never want to live with the fact that someone was injured/maimed/killed/etc. and I had indirectly profited from it. I sold a complete rig recently to a jumper my size but the canopy is too agressive for him. I have tracked down 2 canopies slightly larger and f-111 that will also fit in the container. I have also warned/threatened the jumper about jumping it yet. I could have refused to sell the rig entirely but it will be an appropriate canopy for him if he shelves it for 50-100 jumps(sabre 170 loaded at 1.1-1.2). In fact, several jumpers at the DZ said he'd be fine on it right away(bad call) His plan is to continue to rent for a little while and then use a larger canopy in the container and store the canopy so he can have it later. Even with this much caution involved I still had some reservations but again, I went the distance to help him get a canopy and he loves the container.(esp. the price)

And while I said, that I don't feel that the seller should be responsible, I must admit that I would think less of someone who didn't act as if they were. I guess it's the difference between moral and legal or even ethical and legal. Legally they can sell whatever they want. Ethically I think they should at least see a license and they shouldn't knowingly sell a canopy to someone underqualified. Morally, (I believe) they should not only not sell when they know but also endeavor to find out.

Lastly, before I ever sold a high performance canopy(what am I talking about? I only jump a stiletto 135) I'd ask: what are you jumping now and where do you start you're 270? I heard someone asking about a smaller canopy the other day and a swooper asked him similar questions and then asked him why he wanted to shift when there was so much more to learn on his own canopy. (Yes, I realize that someone could research and then lie about their answers to downsize but if they go that far you probably can't stop them anyway and you have certainly made a good faith effort to protect them. And my responsibility clearly ends before fraud investigator.) Doesn't that seem like a much better route to go anyway as jump numbers and canopy experience aren't always directly related?