kallend 1,644 #26 February 23, 2004 Quote>On April 22, 1992, a de Havilland Twin Otter crashed during takeoff >at Perris Valley, California after an engine lost power. Just a question - would you jump at Perris, a DZ with a known history of fuel problems? If yes, and a similar accident happened, would you sue? Would you claim that you had no idea such a thing could happen? >None of the above fall into the "sh1t happens" category of skydiving >accidents. Every one was preventable by the DZ. EVERY accident is preventable by the DZ. They control the means of access. No lift, no accidents. Specious argument. Apply that to the airlines and which ones would have any passengers at all? QANTAS, maybe? If I carry passengers (even for for free since I'm only a PP) on my airplane, they have every reason to expect that I have not deliberately compromised their safety by willfully ignoring accepted operating and maintenance standards.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZoneRat 0 #27 February 23, 2004 A DZ is a business. The industry has standards and accepted practices. I fully expect DZ's, gear mfg's, etc, to be aware of those standards and practices and to run their business accordingly. If not, they are acting with negligence. If loss of life or limb occurs and the root cause can be proven to be negligence, then there should be a lawsuit. Fear of lawsuits act as a check on negligent practices. Standards and practices must be maintained. Or people die. If enough people die, the sport dies with it.“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RkyMtnHigh 0 #28 February 23, 2004 I was wondering the same thing... _________________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #29 February 23, 2004 Hmm. I was looking for an answer there; I didn't see it in your reply. Would you jump at Perris, a DZ with a known history of fuel problems? Would you read aloud the assumption of risk for the camera? (required there due to people who believe they can still sue after signing a paper saying they won't) If yes, and a similar accident happened, would you sue? Would you claim that you had no idea such a thing could happen? >Apply that to the airlines and which ones would have any passengers >at all? QANTAS, maybe? Are you saying that being a skydiver is like being a passenger on a commercial airliner, and that we can draw parallels between the two? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #30 February 23, 2004 Wake up folks. A waiver does not prevent anyone from suing. It only makes it a little more difficult to collect and provide some protection to persons that comply with "industry standards". Our waivers are not an executed legal document they just a "love letter" telling the survivors that we knew the "normal" risks associated with skydiving. Why argue? Blues, J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nullified 0 #31 February 23, 2004 Is there any way that all these many sue threads could be combined in to one? Is there really a reason to have a thread 'about' another thread 'about' a thread? Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harksaw 0 #32 February 23, 2004 QuoteHmm. I was looking for an answer there; I didn't see it in your reply. Would you jump at Perris, a DZ with a known history of fuel problems? Would you read aloud the assumption of risk for the camera? (required there due to people who believe they can still sue after signing a paper saying they won't) If yes, and a similar accident happened, would you sue? Would you claim that you had no idea such a thing could happen? Quote If its happened more than once, no, I wouldn't jump there. If I did jump there, and a similar accident happened, I would not think it wrong to sue, because the dropzone was breaking FARs and this was killing people, if I understand correctly. I'm going to clarify my stance on this and say, generally, I don't think its wrong to sue if the dropzone was breaking the law. Why should dropzones be above the law? No contract ever, no matter the wording, makes you above the law.__________________________________________________ I started skydiving for the money and the chicks. Oh, wait. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigbearfng 16 #33 February 23, 2004 Re: 1992 Perris-As I understood it, the contaminated fuel was not "fuel drums left out in the rain", but a large fuel tank that was damaged by the earthquake???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,644 #34 February 23, 2004 QuoteHmm. I was looking for an answer there; I didn't see it in your reply. Would you jump at Perris, a DZ with a known history of fuel problems?Quote Depends. Is it a recurring history, or an isolated occurence by an employee long since gone? If they are recurring incidents of misfueling, I hope someone will let me know and I won't jump there again. Would you read aloud the assumption of risk for the camera? (required there due to people who believe they can still sue after signing a paper saying they won't) If yes, and a similar accident happened, would you sue? Would you claim that you had no idea such a thing could happen? Quote I certainly have no idea that the policy of Perris's management is to violate the FARs. Say it ain't so, Bill. >Apply that to the airlines and which ones would have any passengers >at all? QANTAS, maybe? Are you saying that being a skydiver is like being a passenger on a commercial airliner, and that we can draw parallels between the two? I expect the aircraft aspect of skydiving operations to be conducted to the same standard of safety as any other commercial Part 91 aviation operation. Has it occurred to you that there may be a reason that skydiving aviation operations have a worse accident record than just about any other area of general aviation? Absolving skydiving operations from all liability concerning unsafe and illegal practices is to condone those practices.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rendezvous 0 #35 February 23, 2004 I think it's more to do with what the DZ is making you consent to in the assumption of risk. If a DZ is making you sign a waiver you are consenting to some min. standard of maintenance. If that standard is not explicitly stated then at the very least the implied standard becomes whatever is required legally. If that min. is not met then the assumption of risk does not apply since it means that you were misinformed. I do not think you assume misinformation to be acceptable risk in any business. You may choose to continue to avail the service however you haven't consented to this lowered standard unless it was stated on the waiver and you've signed for it. Unless stated on the waiver any negative history against the DZ remains purely theoritical from the waiver and assumption of risk point of view. To that extent I would think the onus of keeping risk assumption in perspective lies on the DZ not the jumper and the jumper will have the right to sue morally and legally inspite of the waiver and inspite of his or her decision to continue jumping even if they are aware of the negative history. If it's not stated on the waiver the problem doesn't exist and that is what you consent too. I think there's a fine line here between implied and assumed risk and that due to concealment of information or misinformation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nullified 0 #36 February 23, 2004 QuoteI mean really people!!!! If you cannot handle the sport then stop jumping all together. The issue is not the sport. Don't misrepresent the issue like this. QuoteOne on a person who obviously does not know how to pack or does not realize that they are opening in a track! Almost all canopies have the same ratio of hard openings. If you want to be sure of an opening then pack for yourself like I do. Quit Bitching and blaming the canopy for your lack of skills!!!!!!!! This appears to be directed towards one specific person, and I would agree with you in this case.QuoteBottom line is, as there was a thread on it, you had better be reading that waiver you sign!! You are releasing almost all of your rights! If you cannot accept this then do not jump!!!!!!!!!! Almost all your rights...correct. There are rights that you can't sign away, and the DZO and their lawyers know that...even if they would try to have you believe otherwise. QuoteIt must be all these new poeple to the sport because I do not recall of this wining B.S. Years ago!!!! I see people of varying experience levels on both sides of this discussion. It's always easy to blame it on the newbies. It makes one feel special, I guess. QuoteAccept all that goes with the sport or leave it!!!!!!!! I accept all that goes with the sport. Gross and criminal negligence, however much someone will hope that you accept otherwise, isn't part of any sport. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dsbbreck 0 #37 February 23, 2004 When I sign a waiver at a dropzone it's with the understanding that there are risks that can't be prevented. If the dropzone was proven to be negligent then I would have no problem suing them if they knowingly put my life at risk and could have done something to prevent the accident. I don't see the difference between my local dropzone business and the commercial airline business. If my United Airlines plane crashed due to faulty maintenance I would definately sue, and I bet every other skydiver would as well. So why would you let your local dropzone get away with that negligence.David "Socrates wasn't killed because he had the answer.......he was killed because he asked the question." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nullified 0 #38 February 23, 2004 QuoteThe sport is dangerous. The DZ is not knowingly going to put your life in danger. I mean seriously. Yeah well, the question is, if they do, then how would you feel about this? According to the waiver, they can knowingly put your life in serious danger. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,426 #39 February 23, 2004 >If a DZ is making you sign a waiver you are consenting to some min. standard of maintenance. Again, READ the waiver. There is no minimum standard. It says in black and white that the staff can be careless and negligent and you won't sue. It couldn't be any more clear. >I do not think you assume misinformation to be acceptable risk in any business. No, which is why the waiver is so long. That's CORRECT information. You can be injured or killed because people fail to maintain the aircraft. And if you are injured because people fail to maintain the airplane, are you going to sue because you thought that "people might fail to maintain the airplane" wasn't clear? Or will you claim that "yeah, I understood it, but now I want to sue anyway?" >If it's not stated on the waiver the problem doesn't exist . . . Since it _is_ stated on the waiver, the problem does exist and you agree to jump there knowing it does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,426 #40 February 23, 2004 >I don't see the difference between my local dropzone business >and the commercial airline business. Skydivers are no different than airline passengers? My god. We could make that happen, I suppose. $99 jumps. You can make up to 2 jumps a day, no higher than 10.5 (12.5 MSL) if you show up early and fill out all the forms and show all your ID, freefall and canopy rating cards. 9 people in an otter, to allow room for FAA-certified seats and approved parachutist restraint systems. No RW, of course, because that's dangerous. No freeflying, because that would exceed the speeds your gear is rated to, and would be flagged on your mandatory reserve data recorder. You could not repack your own main, of course, since you're not a rigger. And you can't jump any place that you could descend under canopy unconscious and cause a risk to any ground structure or person. But it would be really safe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skipro101 0 #41 February 23, 2004 I think that there are situations where a pilot or DZO is responsible for the death or injury of someone. However, I do not believe that if you sued that person that it would solve anything. I dont know what would, but sueing is not the right thing to do imho. And eye for an eye wont help either. Personally, I belive that the evil has alreaady occured, the only thing to do now is educate others so it doesnt happen again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdweller 0 #42 February 23, 2004 > What Is With the Sue Threads? I am sick and tired of hearing all of this. < Wow your sick and tired of hearing all of this, yet you started another thread about it. The irony puts a smile on my face thanks------------------------------------------------------ "From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,644 #43 February 24, 2004 QuoteI think that there are situations where a pilot or DZO is responsible for the death or injury of someone. However, I do not believe that if you sued that person that it would solve anything. I dont know what would, but sueing is not the right thing to do imho. And eye for an eye wont help either. Personally, I belive that the evil has alreaady occured, the only thing to do now is educate others so it doesnt happen again. Do you believe that fining a criminal solves anything? Is there, possibly, a deterrent value?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,644 #44 February 24, 2004 Quote>I don't see the difference between my local dropzone business >and the commercial airline business. Skydivers are no different than airline passengers? My god. We could make that happen, I suppose. $99 jumps. You can make up to 2 jumps a day, no higher than 10.5 (12.5 MSL) if you show up early and fill out all the forms and show all your ID, freefall and canopy rating cards. 9 people in an otter, to allow room for FAA-certified seats and approved parachutist restraint systems. No RW, of course, because that's dangerous. No freeflying, because that would exceed the speeds your gear is rated to, and would be flagged on your mandatory reserve data recorder. You could not repack your own main, of course, since you're not a rigger. And you can't jump any place that you could descend under canopy unconscious and cause a risk to any ground structure or person. But it would be really safe. FAR part 91 applies to jump plane operations. I expect the same level of care from skydiving operations as I give people who fly in my plane with me. If a DZ wilfully chooses to violate the FARs, they have relinquished any moral or ethical right to protection from the law, IMO. If a DZ words its waiver in a way that is at variance with state law and then labels it a legal document, that's their problem, not mine.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterrig 1 #45 February 24, 2004 Right-on, Kramer! Preach on it! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #46 February 24, 2004 Quote Re: 1992 Perris-As I understood it, the contaminated fuel was not "fuel drums left out in the rain", but a large fuel tank that was damaged by the earthquake???? I wasn't fully intending to point to specific examples, although the fuel drums left in the rain really did happen (I know if one instance in England and think it's happend in the states... don't know for sure). Point is they were only supposed to be hyperthetical examples. Thanks for the correction though - I for one can't see any liability in the Perris incident you mention. What else can an earth quake be but a classic "act of god". Just so long as you can't argue that the DZ "should have known" that the tanks could have ruptured but you'll have to ask a civil engeneer for that or something. I guess a duty to check the fuel for contaminants may come into it too, but I don't know the FAA's that well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #47 February 24, 2004 "I guess a duty to check the fuel for contaminants may come into it too" Its really easy to test fuel for contaminants such as water. This should really be done during every refuel cycle in places such as the UK (think condensation). I think there is a little test connection on the bottom of most aircraft tanks. For a typical fuelling procedure see section 8 here.... http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Cap437.pdf This CAA doc is actually for helicopters on offshore platforms, but you can get the gist. I'm pretty sure similar procedures apply for light aircraft, but am not familiar with them.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sdgregory 0 #48 February 24, 2004 QuoteThe sport is dangerous. The DZ is not knowingly going to put your life in danger. I mean seriously You are now assuming that the DZ is tking responsibility here. This is what many are saying. The DZ's that are not going to knowingly put you at risk assume responsibility for their employess and aircraft and gear. There are many business owners, however, that are looking to make a buck any way they can, and I would venture to say there are some DZO's who would do the same. Not many, but to say they do not exist is fooling yourself. Your very statement here shows that you trust the DZ to take care of you. You are therefore not assuming certain risks in your mind because in your mind those particular risks (like stoned pilots) do not exist. A DZ allowing their pilot to fly drunk would be knowingly putting your life in danger A DZ that deliberately cuts corners for a buck is definitely knowingly putting your life in danger and is one we need to be protected from. Lawsuits are one way to do that. Unfortunately there are many who would sue for any reason, and it would be the respectable DZO's who would get hurt. I would not knowingly get on a plane I thought was unsafe, or jump gear packed by someone I did not feel was responsible. But if I did do so knowingly then yes I would have to accept that I signed that waiver. The risks I am knowingly willing to assume are malfunctions, possible collisions with other skydivers, honest aircraft failures, hard landings, hard openings, crashes due to wind shear, honest errors by people, because honest mistakes are part of the risk we assume. I am not knowingly willing to accept the risk of drunk or stoned staff during working hours. If I know that is going on I will not jump there, but sometimes it is hard to tell and in that case when everything sinister is well hidden, we should be protected from that. Whatever form the protection comes in. The more we have discussed this issue, the less likely I believe I would be to sue, and I certainly would rip into anyone sueing frivolously. But in a legitimate case of deliberate negligence I would not trash the person who felt it truly necessary to sue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rendezvous 0 #49 February 24, 2004 Well then you are consenting to carlessness and bad standards and to that extent you assume the risk. But you are still not concenting to malpractice. I think one of the examples quoted was about some prop that was stored for 20 years in a manner against prescribed norms and then put onto the plane resulting in 12 people dead. Would you call that carlessness and part of the waivers assumption that you consent to bad maintenance or would you call the intentional negligence with a possibility of profit making being the priority over basic norms of safety. It really comes down to what does the waiver really mean in terms of what you are consenting too. In essence when does assumed risk stop being an assumed risk. An air plane goes up and developes engine fault, that is an assumed risk. The engine failed even though some basic standard was met, that is an assumed risk. The mechanic was a bit careless, that could be an assume risk. But an engined failed inspite of the mechanic or the DZ operator knowing fairly well that it would but let it pass any way to make the extra buck on the strength of a waiver, now do you consider that assumed risk or some sort of malicious intent ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jmpnkramer 0 #50 February 24, 2004 You have not even been in the sport long enough to know anything about operations at the DZ. When you actually become a Skydiver come talk to me. That means get some travelling experience and have seen many different operations. All of ya'll bring up these points about staff being messed up. QuoteThe DZ is not knowingly going to put your life in danger. I mean seriously Since all the lower intelligence forms take everything at face value I will explain. A reputable operation with professionalism is not knowingly going to put your life in danger. The same goes for sexual harrassment. There are people on here who have seen many more operations and know what I am talking about. You will know a substandard operation when you see one. Believe me. I know there are some places that even drug test. I don't have a problem with it since I am still in the military and get tested on a regular basis. QuoteThere are many business owners, however, that are looking to make a buck any way they can Quoteto say they do not exist is fooling yourself. That is with everything in life!! I knew many would love that last statement. Ya'll are just too predictable. Laters, .The REAL KRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMER! "HESITATION CAUSES DEATH!!!" "Be Slow to Fall into Friendship; but when Thou Art in, Continue Firm & Constant." - SOCRATES Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
bigbearfng 16 #33 February 23, 2004 Re: 1992 Perris-As I understood it, the contaminated fuel was not "fuel drums left out in the rain", but a large fuel tank that was damaged by the earthquake???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #34 February 23, 2004 QuoteHmm. I was looking for an answer there; I didn't see it in your reply. Would you jump at Perris, a DZ with a known history of fuel problems?Quote Depends. Is it a recurring history, or an isolated occurence by an employee long since gone? If they are recurring incidents of misfueling, I hope someone will let me know and I won't jump there again. Would you read aloud the assumption of risk for the camera? (required there due to people who believe they can still sue after signing a paper saying they won't) If yes, and a similar accident happened, would you sue? Would you claim that you had no idea such a thing could happen? Quote I certainly have no idea that the policy of Perris's management is to violate the FARs. Say it ain't so, Bill. >Apply that to the airlines and which ones would have any passengers >at all? QANTAS, maybe? Are you saying that being a skydiver is like being a passenger on a commercial airliner, and that we can draw parallels between the two? I expect the aircraft aspect of skydiving operations to be conducted to the same standard of safety as any other commercial Part 91 aviation operation. Has it occurred to you that there may be a reason that skydiving aviation operations have a worse accident record than just about any other area of general aviation? Absolving skydiving operations from all liability concerning unsafe and illegal practices is to condone those practices.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rendezvous 0 #35 February 23, 2004 I think it's more to do with what the DZ is making you consent to in the assumption of risk. If a DZ is making you sign a waiver you are consenting to some min. standard of maintenance. If that standard is not explicitly stated then at the very least the implied standard becomes whatever is required legally. If that min. is not met then the assumption of risk does not apply since it means that you were misinformed. I do not think you assume misinformation to be acceptable risk in any business. You may choose to continue to avail the service however you haven't consented to this lowered standard unless it was stated on the waiver and you've signed for it. Unless stated on the waiver any negative history against the DZ remains purely theoritical from the waiver and assumption of risk point of view. To that extent I would think the onus of keeping risk assumption in perspective lies on the DZ not the jumper and the jumper will have the right to sue morally and legally inspite of the waiver and inspite of his or her decision to continue jumping even if they are aware of the negative history. If it's not stated on the waiver the problem doesn't exist and that is what you consent too. I think there's a fine line here between implied and assumed risk and that due to concealment of information or misinformation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nullified 0 #36 February 23, 2004 QuoteI mean really people!!!! If you cannot handle the sport then stop jumping all together. The issue is not the sport. Don't misrepresent the issue like this. QuoteOne on a person who obviously does not know how to pack or does not realize that they are opening in a track! Almost all canopies have the same ratio of hard openings. If you want to be sure of an opening then pack for yourself like I do. Quit Bitching and blaming the canopy for your lack of skills!!!!!!!! This appears to be directed towards one specific person, and I would agree with you in this case.QuoteBottom line is, as there was a thread on it, you had better be reading that waiver you sign!! You are releasing almost all of your rights! If you cannot accept this then do not jump!!!!!!!!!! Almost all your rights...correct. There are rights that you can't sign away, and the DZO and their lawyers know that...even if they would try to have you believe otherwise. QuoteIt must be all these new poeple to the sport because I do not recall of this wining B.S. Years ago!!!! I see people of varying experience levels on both sides of this discussion. It's always easy to blame it on the newbies. It makes one feel special, I guess. QuoteAccept all that goes with the sport or leave it!!!!!!!! I accept all that goes with the sport. Gross and criminal negligence, however much someone will hope that you accept otherwise, isn't part of any sport. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dsbbreck 0 #37 February 23, 2004 When I sign a waiver at a dropzone it's with the understanding that there are risks that can't be prevented. If the dropzone was proven to be negligent then I would have no problem suing them if they knowingly put my life at risk and could have done something to prevent the accident. I don't see the difference between my local dropzone business and the commercial airline business. If my United Airlines plane crashed due to faulty maintenance I would definately sue, and I bet every other skydiver would as well. So why would you let your local dropzone get away with that negligence.David "Socrates wasn't killed because he had the answer.......he was killed because he asked the question." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nullified 0 #38 February 23, 2004 QuoteThe sport is dangerous. The DZ is not knowingly going to put your life in danger. I mean seriously. Yeah well, the question is, if they do, then how would you feel about this? According to the waiver, they can knowingly put your life in serious danger. Stay safe, Mike If you're gonna' be stupid, well, then you're most likely stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #39 February 23, 2004 >If a DZ is making you sign a waiver you are consenting to some min. standard of maintenance. Again, READ the waiver. There is no minimum standard. It says in black and white that the staff can be careless and negligent and you won't sue. It couldn't be any more clear. >I do not think you assume misinformation to be acceptable risk in any business. No, which is why the waiver is so long. That's CORRECT information. You can be injured or killed because people fail to maintain the aircraft. And if you are injured because people fail to maintain the airplane, are you going to sue because you thought that "people might fail to maintain the airplane" wasn't clear? Or will you claim that "yeah, I understood it, but now I want to sue anyway?" >If it's not stated on the waiver the problem doesn't exist . . . Since it _is_ stated on the waiver, the problem does exist and you agree to jump there knowing it does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #40 February 23, 2004 >I don't see the difference between my local dropzone business >and the commercial airline business. Skydivers are no different than airline passengers? My god. We could make that happen, I suppose. $99 jumps. You can make up to 2 jumps a day, no higher than 10.5 (12.5 MSL) if you show up early and fill out all the forms and show all your ID, freefall and canopy rating cards. 9 people in an otter, to allow room for FAA-certified seats and approved parachutist restraint systems. No RW, of course, because that's dangerous. No freeflying, because that would exceed the speeds your gear is rated to, and would be flagged on your mandatory reserve data recorder. You could not repack your own main, of course, since you're not a rigger. And you can't jump any place that you could descend under canopy unconscious and cause a risk to any ground structure or person. But it would be really safe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipro101 0 #41 February 23, 2004 I think that there are situations where a pilot or DZO is responsible for the death or injury of someone. However, I do not believe that if you sued that person that it would solve anything. I dont know what would, but sueing is not the right thing to do imho. And eye for an eye wont help either. Personally, I belive that the evil has alreaady occured, the only thing to do now is educate others so it doesnt happen again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdweller 0 #42 February 23, 2004 > What Is With the Sue Threads? I am sick and tired of hearing all of this. < Wow your sick and tired of hearing all of this, yet you started another thread about it. The irony puts a smile on my face thanks------------------------------------------------------ "From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #43 February 24, 2004 QuoteI think that there are situations where a pilot or DZO is responsible for the death or injury of someone. However, I do not believe that if you sued that person that it would solve anything. I dont know what would, but sueing is not the right thing to do imho. And eye for an eye wont help either. Personally, I belive that the evil has alreaady occured, the only thing to do now is educate others so it doesnt happen again. Do you believe that fining a criminal solves anything? Is there, possibly, a deterrent value?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #44 February 24, 2004 Quote>I don't see the difference between my local dropzone business >and the commercial airline business. Skydivers are no different than airline passengers? My god. We could make that happen, I suppose. $99 jumps. You can make up to 2 jumps a day, no higher than 10.5 (12.5 MSL) if you show up early and fill out all the forms and show all your ID, freefall and canopy rating cards. 9 people in an otter, to allow room for FAA-certified seats and approved parachutist restraint systems. No RW, of course, because that's dangerous. No freeflying, because that would exceed the speeds your gear is rated to, and would be flagged on your mandatory reserve data recorder. You could not repack your own main, of course, since you're not a rigger. And you can't jump any place that you could descend under canopy unconscious and cause a risk to any ground structure or person. But it would be really safe. FAR part 91 applies to jump plane operations. I expect the same level of care from skydiving operations as I give people who fly in my plane with me. If a DZ wilfully chooses to violate the FARs, they have relinquished any moral or ethical right to protection from the law, IMO. If a DZ words its waiver in a way that is at variance with state law and then labels it a legal document, that's their problem, not mine.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #45 February 24, 2004 Right-on, Kramer! Preach on it! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #46 February 24, 2004 Quote Re: 1992 Perris-As I understood it, the contaminated fuel was not "fuel drums left out in the rain", but a large fuel tank that was damaged by the earthquake???? I wasn't fully intending to point to specific examples, although the fuel drums left in the rain really did happen (I know if one instance in England and think it's happend in the states... don't know for sure). Point is they were only supposed to be hyperthetical examples. Thanks for the correction though - I for one can't see any liability in the Perris incident you mention. What else can an earth quake be but a classic "act of god". Just so long as you can't argue that the DZ "should have known" that the tanks could have ruptured but you'll have to ask a civil engeneer for that or something. I guess a duty to check the fuel for contaminants may come into it too, but I don't know the FAA's that well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #47 February 24, 2004 "I guess a duty to check the fuel for contaminants may come into it too" Its really easy to test fuel for contaminants such as water. This should really be done during every refuel cycle in places such as the UK (think condensation). I think there is a little test connection on the bottom of most aircraft tanks. For a typical fuelling procedure see section 8 here.... http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Cap437.pdf This CAA doc is actually for helicopters on offshore platforms, but you can get the gist. I'm pretty sure similar procedures apply for light aircraft, but am not familiar with them.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdgregory 0 #48 February 24, 2004 QuoteThe sport is dangerous. The DZ is not knowingly going to put your life in danger. I mean seriously You are now assuming that the DZ is tking responsibility here. This is what many are saying. The DZ's that are not going to knowingly put you at risk assume responsibility for their employess and aircraft and gear. There are many business owners, however, that are looking to make a buck any way they can, and I would venture to say there are some DZO's who would do the same. Not many, but to say they do not exist is fooling yourself. Your very statement here shows that you trust the DZ to take care of you. You are therefore not assuming certain risks in your mind because in your mind those particular risks (like stoned pilots) do not exist. A DZ allowing their pilot to fly drunk would be knowingly putting your life in danger A DZ that deliberately cuts corners for a buck is definitely knowingly putting your life in danger and is one we need to be protected from. Lawsuits are one way to do that. Unfortunately there are many who would sue for any reason, and it would be the respectable DZO's who would get hurt. I would not knowingly get on a plane I thought was unsafe, or jump gear packed by someone I did not feel was responsible. But if I did do so knowingly then yes I would have to accept that I signed that waiver. The risks I am knowingly willing to assume are malfunctions, possible collisions with other skydivers, honest aircraft failures, hard landings, hard openings, crashes due to wind shear, honest errors by people, because honest mistakes are part of the risk we assume. I am not knowingly willing to accept the risk of drunk or stoned staff during working hours. If I know that is going on I will not jump there, but sometimes it is hard to tell and in that case when everything sinister is well hidden, we should be protected from that. Whatever form the protection comes in. The more we have discussed this issue, the less likely I believe I would be to sue, and I certainly would rip into anyone sueing frivolously. But in a legitimate case of deliberate negligence I would not trash the person who felt it truly necessary to sue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rendezvous 0 #49 February 24, 2004 Well then you are consenting to carlessness and bad standards and to that extent you assume the risk. But you are still not concenting to malpractice. I think one of the examples quoted was about some prop that was stored for 20 years in a manner against prescribed norms and then put onto the plane resulting in 12 people dead. Would you call that carlessness and part of the waivers assumption that you consent to bad maintenance or would you call the intentional negligence with a possibility of profit making being the priority over basic norms of safety. It really comes down to what does the waiver really mean in terms of what you are consenting too. In essence when does assumed risk stop being an assumed risk. An air plane goes up and developes engine fault, that is an assumed risk. The engine failed even though some basic standard was met, that is an assumed risk. The mechanic was a bit careless, that could be an assume risk. But an engined failed inspite of the mechanic or the DZ operator knowing fairly well that it would but let it pass any way to make the extra buck on the strength of a waiver, now do you consider that assumed risk or some sort of malicious intent ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jmpnkramer 0 #50 February 24, 2004 You have not even been in the sport long enough to know anything about operations at the DZ. When you actually become a Skydiver come talk to me. That means get some travelling experience and have seen many different operations. All of ya'll bring up these points about staff being messed up. QuoteThe DZ is not knowingly going to put your life in danger. I mean seriously Since all the lower intelligence forms take everything at face value I will explain. A reputable operation with professionalism is not knowingly going to put your life in danger. The same goes for sexual harrassment. There are people on here who have seen many more operations and know what I am talking about. You will know a substandard operation when you see one. Believe me. I know there are some places that even drug test. I don't have a problem with it since I am still in the military and get tested on a regular basis. QuoteThere are many business owners, however, that are looking to make a buck any way they can Quoteto say they do not exist is fooling yourself. That is with everything in life!! I knew many would love that last statement. Ya'll are just too predictable. Laters, .The REAL KRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMER! "HESITATION CAUSES DEATH!!!" "Be Slow to Fall into Friendship; but when Thou Art in, Continue Firm & Constant." - SOCRATES Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
