wrightskyguy 1 #51 August 18, 2003 Quote[quote "Wishing" everyone would obey the rules, follow the guidelines and play nice... without any oversight, just isn't working. If you truly have any constructive input as to how to even approach fixing the current situation facing Demonstration Professionals...I'm all ears! You're not all ears, you've got one an opinion and and anyone else's is just stupid. If you had read my posts, you know that I never said anything about "wishing" that things would get better. I said that the program will work the way it is , but that you have to hold people accountable, something that is not currently being done. The fact that you do a million paid demos a year does'nt make your's the only opinion worthy of consideration. In spite of your insulting post, I have a complete grasp of the "gravity of the situation". John Wright World's most beloved skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 6 #52 August 18, 2003 QuoteDid someone drop you on your head or something? Jump nice John Wright QuoteMY! insulting post??? QuoteI said that the program will work the way it is , but that you have to hold people accountable, something that is not currently being done. QuoteSo, what you're saying is.. The program 'will' work, the way it is...but doesn't... ...and if things were different, they wouldn't be the same. ...Pretty much what I've been saying all along! QuoteI have a complete grasp of the "gravity of the situation". QuoteOkay...if you say so! What do I know...being dropped on my head must have clouded my judgement. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crutch 0 #53 August 18, 2003 QuoteIt's an emotional issue for me, I've been doing in the area of 100 paid demo jumps a year for the past 20 plus years. Hey, why aren't you listening to any ideas other then the ones you put forth? Here ia an example of your logic, if you are making a 100 paid demos a year for twenty years why do you have only 2500 jumps? See, that doesn't make sense to me, but who knows? Using your logic it seems you have made only about 25 practice jumps a year and what about the five-hundred jumps you needed to even get your pro-rating? Okay enough of that, let's get back to the real discussion and quit trashing other people's suggestions. I would like to see where the USPA is subsidizing the pro-program. They may be subsidizing the insurance, but looking at my renewal I am paying extra to have my rating renewed. I do understand we subsidize a booth at the airshow convention every year, but our team doesn't benefit from that, just a few select teams that the USPA members in that booth represent, is that fair. Since we don't do 100 paid demos a year, should our team bear a larger per demo burden than yours which makes 100? I don't think so! John is right, we have too much red tape already, we are losing demos laft and right to the quasi-military teams because of it. What is the USPA doing about that, beats me? There are enough rules, we need to enforce them, if you know of someone having their rating "pencil-whipped" how come you haven't stepped up to the plate and called them out? We have plenty of rules, but the USPA, DZO's and other jumpers tend to look the other way when they are bent. That is what needs to happen, creditability and accountability needs to be put back into the program at its roots. As far as claims go, if the jump wasn't on the up and up, a claim shouldn't be paid, why isn't the USPA doing anything about that? As far as I am concerned, throwing money at this problem isn't the best solution, if you do 100 demos, your cost is maybe five dollars extra a jump. We do ten to twenty, so our cost 15 to 20 extra dollars per jump. So, passing the costs on, is a lot easy for the teams in the demo business. But for us smaller guys (who I believe don't put on any less of a show) are being run out of business. Our team is subsidized by our tandem business, so it is already difficult to make the demo side of it even cover its costs. One last thing, if you raise the price of a pro-rating to 250 to 300 dollars, how many people will not renew. If you lose 70% to 80% of the renewals (which is highly likely), won't you be back in the same boat? I believe, I have tried to throw out ideas, other than raising the price, whether you are opened minded enough to listen, well I doubt it, but they are here.blue skies, art Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wrightskyguy 1 #54 August 18, 2003 Jim: I am done here. There is nothing that I can say that is going to alter your way of thinking, and I will certainly not be jumping into your camp. I will close by reiterating what I have said all along, do things right and hold people accountable if they don't. If you feel that charging people a $500 renewal fee so that we can pay some FAA rep's per diem at demos is the answer then by all means, continue your lobbying efforts. Frankly, the idea of the government taking control of yet another part of my life makes me a little sick, and if anything remotely like what you are proposing happens, then I will simply not renew my rating, because I can't afford it. Good luck in all your future endeavors. Jump nice John Wright John Wright World's most beloved skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 6 #55 August 18, 2003 quote]100 paid demos a year for twenty years why do you have only 2500 jumps? QuoteIf you are referring to the 2500 number listed in my bio info... the 2500 is an approximation of "Skydives" It may be cutting hairs here, ...But; I in no way consider jumping out of an airplane strapped with pyro and addition demonstration gear a skydive. And consequently don't log them as such. I do keep a separate log book recording performances I've made...but to me a demo is a paid stunt, that is a whole other category... To me, the word "skydive" envelops thoughts of a relaxing jump with friends at sunset over Elsinore... ...not having to ground myself to the aircraft airframe with electric cord so the 60 pounds of pyrotechnics strapped to my body doesn't catch a static charge and explode. I've always made the distinction... Skydiving; I am passionate about.... Demos ; Through planning, hard work, and dedication...I have gotten to be fairly good at. ...By the way, I have another separate log for the Tandems I've done as well. QuoteI do understand we subsidize a booth at the airshow convention every year, but our team doesn't benefit from that, just a few select teams that the USPA members in that booth represent, is that fair. QuoteIf the ICAS Convention is what you are referring to, (International Council of Air Shows) I honestly can't recall ever seeing the USPA operating a booth there...We've been going for about 16-17 years now. All the PRO teams associated with ICAS (14 in total) pay membership dues to belong to that organization...if they choose to attend the convention and have a booth, they assume those costs as well. (roughly 2000.00) The USPA has never 'represented' a demonstration team that I am aware of...and would be rather upset if they did!! Quotewe are losing demos laft and right to the quasi-military teams because of it. What is the USPA doing about that, beats me? QuoteTrust me,I understand your frustration on this... but just what CAN the USPA do? The military teams are USPA members as a courtesy to the organization. They are actually self - insured... And You want to compare 'standards' of performance qualifications? Which is harder .. Qualifying for the Knights...or getting a PRO rating. They have all kinds of "unfair" advantages... Being taxpayer funded ...I actually help subsidize my competition. The USPA has no power to do anything in hat situation...do what Pat Moorehouse has done in the past, complain to your elected officials in national government. QuoteAs far as claims go, if the jump wasn't on the up and up, a claim shouldn't be paid, why isn't the USPA doing anything about that? QuoteAgain, I agree with you... but once again, that's not the USPA's call. The insurance carrier makes those decisions. QuoteOne last thing, if you raise the price of a pro-rating to 250 to 300 dollars, how many people will not renew. If you lose 70% to 80% of the renewals (which is highly likely), won't you be back in the same boat? QuoteUpon further research and study, you're probably right... Adding additional cost to a program that is in all likelihood doomed would be ill advised. Again I reiterate, a year from now the PRO program will be quite different from what it is now. Why even bother to qualify if Demonstration Insurance in unavailable through the licensing organization. Quote I believe, I have tried to throw out ideas, other than raising the price, whether you are opened minded enough to listen, well I doubt it, but they are here. QuoteOkay...I guess I'm a little dense here, Ethnic background an all... But what ideas have you presented?? That there is already to much red-tape? Following the next BOD meeting, if demo insurance is canceled...red tape will be also be nonexistent. If you thought my post was a demand to charge more money, so 'little-guys' might be forced out..it was not intended that way. Again...History has PROVEN the current Professional Parachute Demonstration Rating has failed in it's purpose. It's too late to fix it...my question is what's next? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 6 #56 August 18, 2003 *** Jim: I am done here. There is nothing that I can say that is going to alter your way of thinking, and I will certainly not be jumping into your camp. I will close by reiterating what I have said all along, do things right and hold people accountable if they don't. If you feel that charging people a $500 renewal fee so that we can pay some FAA rep's per diem at demos is the answer then by all means, continue your lobbying efforts. Frankly, the idea of the government taking control of yet another part of my life makes me a little sick, and if anything remotely like what you are proposing happens, then I will simply not renew my rating, because I can't afford it. Good luck in all your future endeavors. Jump nice John Wright Quote Good enough John, We'll agree that we disagree on some of this. I wish I had been paying more attention to the way this issue was headed a few years ago, perhaps back then making people more accountable alone would have sufficed. My point about raising the fee was only a possible idea as to a method of funding the task required to oversee imposed accountability. I do apologize if the discussion strayed from the original focus and intent, which was to tap into the resource of intelligent members of our brotherhood....and spitball some solutions that might be viable. Due to economic considerations, the USPA, in order to insure the continued growth of the overall organization, is being faced with a difficult decision. Because claims against the policy, demo insurance is no longer viable from a cost / benefit stand point. I believe they will not only do away with it, but also take measures to Self-insure the general membership liability. In so doing that, the organization itself will have a say on claims paid, it logically follows that more oversight will be a natural byproduct. Who knows, hopefully some kind of alternate solution can be found, other avenues are being explored by the USPA. But at this point, I wouldn't bet the ranch. If some time ahead, our paths cross... The first round is on me! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wrightskyguy 1 #57 August 19, 2003 Quote[quote If some time ahead, our paths cross... The first round is on me! At last! something we can agree on. Everyones gotta have some common ground. Good luck Jump nice John Wright World's most beloved skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #52 August 18, 2003 QuoteDid someone drop you on your head or something? Jump nice John Wright QuoteMY! insulting post??? QuoteI said that the program will work the way it is , but that you have to hold people accountable, something that is not currently being done. QuoteSo, what you're saying is.. The program 'will' work, the way it is...but doesn't... ...and if things were different, they wouldn't be the same. ...Pretty much what I've been saying all along! QuoteI have a complete grasp of the "gravity of the situation". QuoteOkay...if you say so! What do I know...being dropped on my head must have clouded my judgement. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crutch 0 #53 August 18, 2003 QuoteIt's an emotional issue for me, I've been doing in the area of 100 paid demo jumps a year for the past 20 plus years. Hey, why aren't you listening to any ideas other then the ones you put forth? Here ia an example of your logic, if you are making a 100 paid demos a year for twenty years why do you have only 2500 jumps? See, that doesn't make sense to me, but who knows? Using your logic it seems you have made only about 25 practice jumps a year and what about the five-hundred jumps you needed to even get your pro-rating? Okay enough of that, let's get back to the real discussion and quit trashing other people's suggestions. I would like to see where the USPA is subsidizing the pro-program. They may be subsidizing the insurance, but looking at my renewal I am paying extra to have my rating renewed. I do understand we subsidize a booth at the airshow convention every year, but our team doesn't benefit from that, just a few select teams that the USPA members in that booth represent, is that fair. Since we don't do 100 paid demos a year, should our team bear a larger per demo burden than yours which makes 100? I don't think so! John is right, we have too much red tape already, we are losing demos laft and right to the quasi-military teams because of it. What is the USPA doing about that, beats me? There are enough rules, we need to enforce them, if you know of someone having their rating "pencil-whipped" how come you haven't stepped up to the plate and called them out? We have plenty of rules, but the USPA, DZO's and other jumpers tend to look the other way when they are bent. That is what needs to happen, creditability and accountability needs to be put back into the program at its roots. As far as claims go, if the jump wasn't on the up and up, a claim shouldn't be paid, why isn't the USPA doing anything about that? As far as I am concerned, throwing money at this problem isn't the best solution, if you do 100 demos, your cost is maybe five dollars extra a jump. We do ten to twenty, so our cost 15 to 20 extra dollars per jump. So, passing the costs on, is a lot easy for the teams in the demo business. But for us smaller guys (who I believe don't put on any less of a show) are being run out of business. Our team is subsidized by our tandem business, so it is already difficult to make the demo side of it even cover its costs. One last thing, if you raise the price of a pro-rating to 250 to 300 dollars, how many people will not renew. If you lose 70% to 80% of the renewals (which is highly likely), won't you be back in the same boat? I believe, I have tried to throw out ideas, other than raising the price, whether you are opened minded enough to listen, well I doubt it, but they are here.blue skies, art Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wrightskyguy 1 #54 August 18, 2003 Jim: I am done here. There is nothing that I can say that is going to alter your way of thinking, and I will certainly not be jumping into your camp. I will close by reiterating what I have said all along, do things right and hold people accountable if they don't. If you feel that charging people a $500 renewal fee so that we can pay some FAA rep's per diem at demos is the answer then by all means, continue your lobbying efforts. Frankly, the idea of the government taking control of yet another part of my life makes me a little sick, and if anything remotely like what you are proposing happens, then I will simply not renew my rating, because I can't afford it. Good luck in all your future endeavors. Jump nice John Wright John Wright World's most beloved skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #55 August 18, 2003 quote]100 paid demos a year for twenty years why do you have only 2500 jumps? QuoteIf you are referring to the 2500 number listed in my bio info... the 2500 is an approximation of "Skydives" It may be cutting hairs here, ...But; I in no way consider jumping out of an airplane strapped with pyro and addition demonstration gear a skydive. And consequently don't log them as such. I do keep a separate log book recording performances I've made...but to me a demo is a paid stunt, that is a whole other category... To me, the word "skydive" envelops thoughts of a relaxing jump with friends at sunset over Elsinore... ...not having to ground myself to the aircraft airframe with electric cord so the 60 pounds of pyrotechnics strapped to my body doesn't catch a static charge and explode. I've always made the distinction... Skydiving; I am passionate about.... Demos ; Through planning, hard work, and dedication...I have gotten to be fairly good at. ...By the way, I have another separate log for the Tandems I've done as well. QuoteI do understand we subsidize a booth at the airshow convention every year, but our team doesn't benefit from that, just a few select teams that the USPA members in that booth represent, is that fair. QuoteIf the ICAS Convention is what you are referring to, (International Council of Air Shows) I honestly can't recall ever seeing the USPA operating a booth there...We've been going for about 16-17 years now. All the PRO teams associated with ICAS (14 in total) pay membership dues to belong to that organization...if they choose to attend the convention and have a booth, they assume those costs as well. (roughly 2000.00) The USPA has never 'represented' a demonstration team that I am aware of...and would be rather upset if they did!! Quotewe are losing demos laft and right to the quasi-military teams because of it. What is the USPA doing about that, beats me? QuoteTrust me,I understand your frustration on this... but just what CAN the USPA do? The military teams are USPA members as a courtesy to the organization. They are actually self - insured... And You want to compare 'standards' of performance qualifications? Which is harder .. Qualifying for the Knights...or getting a PRO rating. They have all kinds of "unfair" advantages... Being taxpayer funded ...I actually help subsidize my competition. The USPA has no power to do anything in hat situation...do what Pat Moorehouse has done in the past, complain to your elected officials in national government. QuoteAs far as claims go, if the jump wasn't on the up and up, a claim shouldn't be paid, why isn't the USPA doing anything about that? QuoteAgain, I agree with you... but once again, that's not the USPA's call. The insurance carrier makes those decisions. QuoteOne last thing, if you raise the price of a pro-rating to 250 to 300 dollars, how many people will not renew. If you lose 70% to 80% of the renewals (which is highly likely), won't you be back in the same boat? QuoteUpon further research and study, you're probably right... Adding additional cost to a program that is in all likelihood doomed would be ill advised. Again I reiterate, a year from now the PRO program will be quite different from what it is now. Why even bother to qualify if Demonstration Insurance in unavailable through the licensing organization. Quote I believe, I have tried to throw out ideas, other than raising the price, whether you are opened minded enough to listen, well I doubt it, but they are here. QuoteOkay...I guess I'm a little dense here, Ethnic background an all... But what ideas have you presented?? That there is already to much red-tape? Following the next BOD meeting, if demo insurance is canceled...red tape will be also be nonexistent. If you thought my post was a demand to charge more money, so 'little-guys' might be forced out..it was not intended that way. Again...History has PROVEN the current Professional Parachute Demonstration Rating has failed in it's purpose. It's too late to fix it...my question is what's next? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #56 August 18, 2003 *** Jim: I am done here. There is nothing that I can say that is going to alter your way of thinking, and I will certainly not be jumping into your camp. I will close by reiterating what I have said all along, do things right and hold people accountable if they don't. If you feel that charging people a $500 renewal fee so that we can pay some FAA rep's per diem at demos is the answer then by all means, continue your lobbying efforts. Frankly, the idea of the government taking control of yet another part of my life makes me a little sick, and if anything remotely like what you are proposing happens, then I will simply not renew my rating, because I can't afford it. Good luck in all your future endeavors. Jump nice John Wright Quote Good enough John, We'll agree that we disagree on some of this. I wish I had been paying more attention to the way this issue was headed a few years ago, perhaps back then making people more accountable alone would have sufficed. My point about raising the fee was only a possible idea as to a method of funding the task required to oversee imposed accountability. I do apologize if the discussion strayed from the original focus and intent, which was to tap into the resource of intelligent members of our brotherhood....and spitball some solutions that might be viable. Due to economic considerations, the USPA, in order to insure the continued growth of the overall organization, is being faced with a difficult decision. Because claims against the policy, demo insurance is no longer viable from a cost / benefit stand point. I believe they will not only do away with it, but also take measures to Self-insure the general membership liability. In so doing that, the organization itself will have a say on claims paid, it logically follows that more oversight will be a natural byproduct. Who knows, hopefully some kind of alternate solution can be found, other avenues are being explored by the USPA. But at this point, I wouldn't bet the ranch. If some time ahead, our paths cross... The first round is on me! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wrightskyguy 1 #57 August 19, 2003 Quote[quote If some time ahead, our paths cross... The first round is on me! At last! something we can agree on. Everyones gotta have some common ground. Good luck Jump nice John Wright World's most beloved skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #58 August 28, 2003 Just wanted to bump this thread... Anyone care to comment on the USPA President's editorial concerning the insurance issues in this months "Parachutist Magazine" ? It appears my initial assessment of the insurance situation was as accurate as I thought. As stated in the article, it seems anything we could do... at this late date would be to little to late. 'Chicken-Little' had a point! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iowa 0 #59 August 28, 2003 I've been stewing on this for awhile. I agree the requirements are too low. More to the point, too easy to pencil whip. (I've never seen that but I hear things) I think the key might be better education. A course conducted by a limited number of course directors. A PRO IE if you will. You would still have to show up with a completed proficiency card and have to make 3 or 4 more jumps for the weekend course. Most of the weekend would be classroom, ground prep, and safety issues. If such a thing were to happen, I would not like to see any waiting period like the thing with people scrambling to get thier D license. That or a no grandfather clause. (ouch) All that would raise the price a good bit too. Keith ''Always do sober what you said you would do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut.'' - Ernest Hemingway Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #60 August 28, 2003 It's looking like it may be a moot point. If USPA can't offer insurance to cover the demo program... what's the point in jumping through hoops to qualify? I think the requirements should have been increased drasticly a long time ago.... Loss of the program is the result of weak self-regulating those involved. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #61 August 28, 2003 Quoteraising the requirements to get a PRO rating... 250.00-500.00 dollar range... What you will do is drive people *away* from PRO ratings, and therefore, fewer demos will be done by PRO-rated jumpers. After all, a PRO rating is not an official FAA requirement for a demo jump. If your proposals were implemented, it is likely that even more accidents would occur. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #62 August 28, 2003 Quote***the insurance payouts for injuries and damages done during PRO demos is 3 times that of the general membership... the number of PRO jumps is just a fraction of the general membership, yet they do 3X the damage! This tells me that the people doing these demos are not qualified to be putting people and property in harms way. No, your conclusion does not follow from those facts. Correlation does not necessarily equal cause and effect. What it could mean instead, is that spectators at public events are just far more likely to sue someone who is "responsible" for their injuries, than spectators at a regular parachute center. Lawyers at demo events have "deep pockets" to go after. If you have insurance, they'll sue for that insurance money. If you are uninsured and have no major assets, they don't waste their time on you. The dollar amount of payouts in lawsuits has no bearing on the competence of the skydivers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #63 August 28, 2003 Quote***the demo insurance will in all likelihood be going away completely... Can the general membership ins. be far behind? If that happens what will be the effect on our sport...??? Well, for starters a lot of small dropzones will have to severely limit their operation if not close down altogether... I don't think the sky is falling, or that there will be a domino effect. If demo insurance is unobtainable, that doesn't mean that the general membership insurance will disappear also. You said yourself that demo insurance causes three times more claims than the rest of it. Therefore, it is highly likely that the general insurance will remain, while only the demo insurance will be dropped. It is premature to be an alarmist and predict doom and gloom for all drop zones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #64 August 29, 2003 ***No, your conclusion does not follow from those facts. Correlation does not necessarily equal cause and effect. What it could mean instead, is that spectators at public events are just far more likely to sue someone who is "responsible" for their injuries, than spectators at a regular parachute center. Lawyers at demo events have "deep pockets" to go after. If you have insurance, they'll sue for that insurance money. If you are uninsured and have no major assets, they don't waste their time on you. The dollar amount of payouts in lawsuits has no bearing on the competence of the skydivers. Quote What it could mean is that they were injured by a Demo jumper who did not have the skills/judgment to do the demo. If he/she had the skill/judgment the spectator would not have been injured. That correlation equals cause and effect won't you say.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 6 #65 August 29, 2003 QuoteQuote***the demo insurance will in all likelihood be going away completely... Can the general membership ins. be far behind? If that happens what will be the effect on our sport...??? Well, for starters a lot of small dropzones will have to severely limit their operation if not close down altogether... I don't think the sky is falling, or that there will be a domino effect. If demo insurance is unobtainable, that doesn't mean that the general membership insurance will disappear also. You said yourself that demo insurance causes three times more claims than the rest of it. Therefore, it is highly likely that the general insurance will remain, while only the demo insurance will be dropped. It is premature to be an alarmist and predict doom and gloom for all drop zones. *** No...You are wrong! The beginning of this thread was started a while back, before certain additional facts came to light. My recent bump of the thread was to query reaction to the "Presidents Perspective" editorial in this months Parachutist. I take it from your response, that you haven't yet had an opportunity to review the article. The article CLEARLY STATES that yes, in fact we are about to lose ALL liability insurance coverage. As I stated earlier, the general membership policy and the demo policy are linked. You absolutely cannot have one without the other. The only reason the general membership policy was available / affordable, was BECAUSE it was a "preferred rate " rider along side the demonstration insurance. I had a bad feeling this was going to happen...and it did! There are no "if's or "maybes" about it. As of March 2004, unless YOU find a way to cover youself outside the organization... you are personally finanically responcible for any and all damages or injuries you may cause. That's not demos...that's you at the local dropzone! Hit a car...write a check! Hit a person...sign over your house, and hope they heal so you don't go to jail! Tell me that's not going to affect the sport... If an injured party finds it impossible to collect damages caused by 'Joe Jumper' due to his poorhouse status...that injured party isn't going to go after the dropzone owner...the pilot...the airport...the kid packing rigs...everyone for miles around. I have spent a considerable amount of time and energy investigating possible alternatives...some exist. But nothing approaching the type of liability safety net currently enjoyed by the USPA general membership. If the organization were to again endeavor to provide coverage... they will be, as a matter of survival, imposing limits and restrictions the likes you've never imagined. You're right..the sky is not falling.... Everything is fine....and the Cubs are gonna win the pennant! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #66 September 1, 2003 Quote***What it could mean is that they were injured by a Demo jumper who did not have the skills/judgment to do the demo. If he/she had the skill/judgment the spectator would not have been injured. That correlation equals cause and effect won't you say. The key word there is "could". You have listed but one scenario for an insurance payout. We can cherry-pick imaginary scenarios all day to "prove" a point. But they don't really prove anything in general. Let me illustrate my point, using scenarios like yours. Lets say you have two incidents where a spectator was injured: #1) At a football game with thousands of spectators, PRO-rated jumpers, and an insurance policy. #2) At the home drop zone, by a B-licensed jumper landing in a picnic area, who owns no substantial assets. Now, which of the two injured parties is more likely to sue? The demo jump spectator, of course. Why? Because they have "deep pockets" to go after with that insurance policy. The drop zone spectator doesn't have anything to go after, except to garnish some poor guy's wages. Lawyers don't want to fool with that. And it was the more highly qualified jumper who generated the lawsuit. Hence, the fact that a lawsuit was filed in one case, had no bearing upon the competence of the two separate skydivers. The only factor at play here is: deep pockets. There's a reason that the Relative Workshop changed their name a few years ago to the Uninsured Relative Workshop. That name is supposed to serve as a flag to the lawyers, that they shouldn't bother sueing, because there aren't any deep pockets. If you have insurance, you will be sued. If you don't have insurance, and don't have any assets, you are pretty much lawsuit-proof. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #67 September 1, 2003 QuoteThe article CLEARLY STATES that yes, in fact we are about to lose ALL liability insurance coverage. As I stated earlier, the general membership policy and the demo policy are linked. You absolutely cannot have one without the other. I've gone back and re-read the article, and I see your interpretation of the situation, and agree that it seems the obvious conclusion. However, I thought that Glenn Bangs implied that the linkage between the two could be separated, the more costly demo insurance dropped, and the general membership insurance retained, for a lower total premium. But maybe I'm reading too much between the lines... :-) Don't get me wrong, I am not unsympathetic to your situation, or for demo jumps in general. I've done a good number of them myself and enjoy the challenge. I'd like to keep doing them, but the bureaucratic hurdles get higher every year, and they are often not worth the trouble... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 6 #68 September 1, 2003 Quote and agree that it seems the obvious conclusion. However, I thought that Glenn Bangs implied that the linkage between the two could be separated, the more costly demo insurance dropped, and the general membership insurance retained, *** That's not my understanding of the current situation.... Of course the situation may change between now and March 2004. I agree that the General Membership coverage is ultimately most important to the continuation of the sport as we know it now. But... Again, I'm just going by what I've been told here.... Even IF it were possible to sever the two policies... any way you slice it. It's a losing proposition for the USPA to continue subsidizing the lions share of any premium. John- take a look at the, "USPA Member? Read This!" thread for more discussion on this toipc. -Jim ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #69 September 1, 2003 QuoteQuote***What it could mean is that they were injured by a Demo jumper who did not have the skills/judgment to do the demo. If he/she had the skill/judgment the spectator would not have been injured. That correlation equals cause and effect won't you say. The key word there is "could". You have listed but one scenario for an insurance payout. We can cherry-pick imaginary scenarios all day to "prove" a point. But they don't really prove anything in general. Let me illustrate my point, using scenarios like yours. Lets say you have two incidents where a spectator was injured: #1) At a football game with thousands of spectators, PRO-rated jumpers, and an insurance policy. #2) At the home drop zone, by a B-licensed jumper landing in a picnic area, who owns no substantial assets. Now, which of the two injured parties is more likely to sue? The demo jump spectator, of course. Why? Because they have "deep pockets" to go after with that insurance policy. The drop zone spectator doesn't have anything to go after, except to garnish some poor guy's wages. Lawyers don't want to fool with that. And it was the more highly qualified jumper who generated the lawsuit. Hence, the fact that a lawsuit was filed in one case, had no bearing upon the competence of the two separate skydivers. The only factor at play here is: deep pockets. There's a reason that the Relative Workshop changed their name a few years ago to the Uninsured Relative Workshop. That name is supposed to serve as a flag to the lawyers, that they shouldn't bother sueing, because there aren't any deep pockets. If you have insurance, you will be sued. If you don't have insurance, and don't have any assets, you are pretty much lawsuit-proof. First of all it is not my scenario I was responding to your post. The key "should" is also from your post, not mine. I stated that if the jumper had the skills and judgment he would not have hit the spectator. If he would not have hit the spectator there would not be a law suit. That is the cause and effect correlation I was refering to from your post. Where you came up with all this other shit is anyones guess.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #70 September 1, 2003 QuoteQuote***What it could mean is that they were injured by a Demo jumper who did not have the skills/judgment to do the demo. If he/she had the skill/judgment the spectator would not have been injured. That correlation equals cause and effect won't you say. The key word there is "could". You have listed but one scenario for an insurance payout. We can cherry-pick imaginary scenarios all day to "prove" a point. But they don't really prove anything in general. Let me illustrate my point, using scenarios like yours. Lets say you have two incidents where a spectator was injured: #1) At a football game with thousands of spectators, PRO-rated jumpers, and an insurance policy. #2) At the home drop zone, by a B-licensed jumper landing in a picnic area, who owns no substantial assets. Now, which of the two injured parties is more likely to sue? The demo jump spectator, of course. Why? Because they have "deep pockets" to go after with that insurance policy. The drop zone spectator doesn't have anything to go after, except to garnish some poor guy's wages. Lawyers don't want to fool with that. And it was the more highly qualified jumper who generated the lawsuit. Hence, the fact that a lawsuit was filed in one case, had no bearing upon the competence of the two separate skydivers. The only factor at play here is: deep pockets. There's a reason that the Relative Workshop changed their name a few years ago to the Uninsured Relative Workshop. That name is supposed to serve as a flag to the lawyers, that they shouldn't bother sueing, because there aren't any deep pockets. If you have insurance, you will be sued. If you don't have insurance, and don't have any assets, you are pretty much lawsuit-proof. First of all it is not my scenario, I was responding to your post. The key word "could" was also from your post. I said if the jumper had the skill and judgment needed he would not have hit the spectator. If he had not hit the spectator there would not have been a law suit. That is the cause and effect correlation again in reference to your post. Where you got the rest of this shit is anybody's guess.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 6 #71 September 2, 2003 Quote if the jumper had the skill and judgment needed he would not have hit the spectator. If he had not hit the spectator there would not have been a law suit. Quote Why is this simple concept being missed by so many??? Skill and judgment ARE factors that can be regulated... Try to get a NASCAR learners permit! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #72 September 2, 2003 QuoteFirst of all it is not my scenario I was responding to your post. I offered no such scenario in my postings, up to that point. Quoteif the jumper had the skills and judgment he would not have hit the spectator. I do not subscribe to the theory that the cause of every accident is someone's lack of skill or judgement. Sometimes shit happens, and it is nobody's fault. Like freak wind conditions. Even the best jumpers in the world sometimes get caught in conditions that cause them problems. That doesn't mean that they are incompetent jumpers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #73 September 2, 2003 QuoteSkill and judgment ARE factors that can be regulated... Try to get a NASCAR learners permit! Yet despite all the skills of NASCAR drivers, they still have accidents during races! Does that mean that they are incompetent? Does that mean that even more regulation is necessary? The point I'm making is that even the best of us sometimes screw up. That doesn't make the best of us "incompetent". It's just the nature of demo jumps, and all other kinds of endeavors. There will always be accidents - the world is not perfect, nor are human beings, nor are jump conditions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 6 #74 September 2, 2003 Quote Yet despite all the skills of NASCAR drivers, they still have accidents during races! Does that mean that they are incomptent? Does that mean that even more regulation is necessary? *** John, My point is that there are entirely to many incidents where the 'skill and judgment' factor.... or the lack of said, was instrumental in the damage and / or injury resulting. Of this there can be no dispute! The facts speak for themselves... The number of demo accidents and the resulting cost against the Demonstration Liability Insurance.. HAS ENDED THE PROGRAM! Yes, I believe that if similar percentage # ' s of liability incidents were experienced by NASCAR.. or ANY corporation.... Serious review of both methods and operational standards would be forthcoming. BEFORE a situation arose such as the one we face now. In today's environment, demo jumpers need to hold to the highest standards possible... Yes,...Murphy lurks, and 'Shit Happens' But, that doesn't account for ALL the problems this program has encountered. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #75 September 2, 2003 ***No, your conclusion does not follow from those facts. Correlation does not necessarily equal cause and effect. What it could mean instead, is that spectators at public events are just far more likely to sue someone who is "responsible" for their injuries, than spectators at a regular parachute center. Lawyers at demo events have "deep pockets" to go after. If you have insurance, they'll sue for that insurance money. If you are uninsured and have no major assets, they don't waste their time on you. The dollar amount of payouts in lawsuits has no bearing on the competence of the skydivers. QuoteThis is your post I was responding to. And I responded with "What it could mean is that they were injured by a Demo jumper who did not have the skills/judgment to do the demo. If he/she had the skill/judgment the spectator would not have been injured. That correlation equals cause and effect won't you say."My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 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
airtwardo 6 #65 August 29, 2003 QuoteQuote***the demo insurance will in all likelihood be going away completely... Can the general membership ins. be far behind? If that happens what will be the effect on our sport...??? Well, for starters a lot of small dropzones will have to severely limit their operation if not close down altogether... I don't think the sky is falling, or that there will be a domino effect. If demo insurance is unobtainable, that doesn't mean that the general membership insurance will disappear also. You said yourself that demo insurance causes three times more claims than the rest of it. Therefore, it is highly likely that the general insurance will remain, while only the demo insurance will be dropped. It is premature to be an alarmist and predict doom and gloom for all drop zones. *** No...You are wrong! The beginning of this thread was started a while back, before certain additional facts came to light. My recent bump of the thread was to query reaction to the "Presidents Perspective" editorial in this months Parachutist. I take it from your response, that you haven't yet had an opportunity to review the article. The article CLEARLY STATES that yes, in fact we are about to lose ALL liability insurance coverage. As I stated earlier, the general membership policy and the demo policy are linked. You absolutely cannot have one without the other. The only reason the general membership policy was available / affordable, was BECAUSE it was a "preferred rate " rider along side the demonstration insurance. I had a bad feeling this was going to happen...and it did! There are no "if's or "maybes" about it. As of March 2004, unless YOU find a way to cover youself outside the organization... you are personally finanically responcible for any and all damages or injuries you may cause. That's not demos...that's you at the local dropzone! Hit a car...write a check! Hit a person...sign over your house, and hope they heal so you don't go to jail! Tell me that's not going to affect the sport... If an injured party finds it impossible to collect damages caused by 'Joe Jumper' due to his poorhouse status...that injured party isn't going to go after the dropzone owner...the pilot...the airport...the kid packing rigs...everyone for miles around. I have spent a considerable amount of time and energy investigating possible alternatives...some exist. But nothing approaching the type of liability safety net currently enjoyed by the USPA general membership. If the organization were to again endeavor to provide coverage... they will be, as a matter of survival, imposing limits and restrictions the likes you've never imagined. You're right..the sky is not falling.... Everything is fine....and the Cubs are gonna win the pennant! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #66 September 1, 2003 Quote***What it could mean is that they were injured by a Demo jumper who did not have the skills/judgment to do the demo. If he/she had the skill/judgment the spectator would not have been injured. That correlation equals cause and effect won't you say. The key word there is "could". You have listed but one scenario for an insurance payout. We can cherry-pick imaginary scenarios all day to "prove" a point. But they don't really prove anything in general. Let me illustrate my point, using scenarios like yours. Lets say you have two incidents where a spectator was injured: #1) At a football game with thousands of spectators, PRO-rated jumpers, and an insurance policy. #2) At the home drop zone, by a B-licensed jumper landing in a picnic area, who owns no substantial assets. Now, which of the two injured parties is more likely to sue? The demo jump spectator, of course. Why? Because they have "deep pockets" to go after with that insurance policy. The drop zone spectator doesn't have anything to go after, except to garnish some poor guy's wages. Lawyers don't want to fool with that. And it was the more highly qualified jumper who generated the lawsuit. Hence, the fact that a lawsuit was filed in one case, had no bearing upon the competence of the two separate skydivers. The only factor at play here is: deep pockets. There's a reason that the Relative Workshop changed their name a few years ago to the Uninsured Relative Workshop. That name is supposed to serve as a flag to the lawyers, that they shouldn't bother sueing, because there aren't any deep pockets. If you have insurance, you will be sued. If you don't have insurance, and don't have any assets, you are pretty much lawsuit-proof. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #67 September 1, 2003 QuoteThe article CLEARLY STATES that yes, in fact we are about to lose ALL liability insurance coverage. As I stated earlier, the general membership policy and the demo policy are linked. You absolutely cannot have one without the other. I've gone back and re-read the article, and I see your interpretation of the situation, and agree that it seems the obvious conclusion. However, I thought that Glenn Bangs implied that the linkage between the two could be separated, the more costly demo insurance dropped, and the general membership insurance retained, for a lower total premium. But maybe I'm reading too much between the lines... :-) Don't get me wrong, I am not unsympathetic to your situation, or for demo jumps in general. I've done a good number of them myself and enjoy the challenge. I'd like to keep doing them, but the bureaucratic hurdles get higher every year, and they are often not worth the trouble... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #68 September 1, 2003 Quote and agree that it seems the obvious conclusion. However, I thought that Glenn Bangs implied that the linkage between the two could be separated, the more costly demo insurance dropped, and the general membership insurance retained, *** That's not my understanding of the current situation.... Of course the situation may change between now and March 2004. I agree that the General Membership coverage is ultimately most important to the continuation of the sport as we know it now. But... Again, I'm just going by what I've been told here.... Even IF it were possible to sever the two policies... any way you slice it. It's a losing proposition for the USPA to continue subsidizing the lions share of any premium. John- take a look at the, "USPA Member? Read This!" thread for more discussion on this toipc. -Jim ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #69 September 1, 2003 QuoteQuote***What it could mean is that they were injured by a Demo jumper who did not have the skills/judgment to do the demo. If he/she had the skill/judgment the spectator would not have been injured. That correlation equals cause and effect won't you say. The key word there is "could". You have listed but one scenario for an insurance payout. We can cherry-pick imaginary scenarios all day to "prove" a point. But they don't really prove anything in general. Let me illustrate my point, using scenarios like yours. Lets say you have two incidents where a spectator was injured: #1) At a football game with thousands of spectators, PRO-rated jumpers, and an insurance policy. #2) At the home drop zone, by a B-licensed jumper landing in a picnic area, who owns no substantial assets. Now, which of the two injured parties is more likely to sue? The demo jump spectator, of course. Why? Because they have "deep pockets" to go after with that insurance policy. The drop zone spectator doesn't have anything to go after, except to garnish some poor guy's wages. Lawyers don't want to fool with that. And it was the more highly qualified jumper who generated the lawsuit. Hence, the fact that a lawsuit was filed in one case, had no bearing upon the competence of the two separate skydivers. The only factor at play here is: deep pockets. There's a reason that the Relative Workshop changed their name a few years ago to the Uninsured Relative Workshop. That name is supposed to serve as a flag to the lawyers, that they shouldn't bother sueing, because there aren't any deep pockets. If you have insurance, you will be sued. If you don't have insurance, and don't have any assets, you are pretty much lawsuit-proof. First of all it is not my scenario I was responding to your post. The key "should" is also from your post, not mine. I stated that if the jumper had the skills and judgment he would not have hit the spectator. If he would not have hit the spectator there would not be a law suit. That is the cause and effect correlation I was refering to from your post. Where you came up with all this other shit is anyones guess.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #70 September 1, 2003 QuoteQuote***What it could mean is that they were injured by a Demo jumper who did not have the skills/judgment to do the demo. If he/she had the skill/judgment the spectator would not have been injured. That correlation equals cause and effect won't you say. The key word there is "could". You have listed but one scenario for an insurance payout. We can cherry-pick imaginary scenarios all day to "prove" a point. But they don't really prove anything in general. Let me illustrate my point, using scenarios like yours. Lets say you have two incidents where a spectator was injured: #1) At a football game with thousands of spectators, PRO-rated jumpers, and an insurance policy. #2) At the home drop zone, by a B-licensed jumper landing in a picnic area, who owns no substantial assets. Now, which of the two injured parties is more likely to sue? The demo jump spectator, of course. Why? Because they have "deep pockets" to go after with that insurance policy. The drop zone spectator doesn't have anything to go after, except to garnish some poor guy's wages. Lawyers don't want to fool with that. And it was the more highly qualified jumper who generated the lawsuit. Hence, the fact that a lawsuit was filed in one case, had no bearing upon the competence of the two separate skydivers. The only factor at play here is: deep pockets. There's a reason that the Relative Workshop changed their name a few years ago to the Uninsured Relative Workshop. That name is supposed to serve as a flag to the lawyers, that they shouldn't bother sueing, because there aren't any deep pockets. If you have insurance, you will be sued. If you don't have insurance, and don't have any assets, you are pretty much lawsuit-proof. First of all it is not my scenario, I was responding to your post. The key word "could" was also from your post. I said if the jumper had the skill and judgment needed he would not have hit the spectator. If he had not hit the spectator there would not have been a law suit. That is the cause and effect correlation again in reference to your post. Where you got the rest of this shit is anybody's guess.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #71 September 2, 2003 Quote if the jumper had the skill and judgment needed he would not have hit the spectator. If he had not hit the spectator there would not have been a law suit. Quote Why is this simple concept being missed by so many??? Skill and judgment ARE factors that can be regulated... Try to get a NASCAR learners permit! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #72 September 2, 2003 QuoteFirst of all it is not my scenario I was responding to your post. I offered no such scenario in my postings, up to that point. Quoteif the jumper had the skills and judgment he would not have hit the spectator. I do not subscribe to the theory that the cause of every accident is someone's lack of skill or judgement. Sometimes shit happens, and it is nobody's fault. Like freak wind conditions. Even the best jumpers in the world sometimes get caught in conditions that cause them problems. That doesn't mean that they are incompetent jumpers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #73 September 2, 2003 QuoteSkill and judgment ARE factors that can be regulated... Try to get a NASCAR learners permit! Yet despite all the skills of NASCAR drivers, they still have accidents during races! Does that mean that they are incompetent? Does that mean that even more regulation is necessary? The point I'm making is that even the best of us sometimes screw up. That doesn't make the best of us "incompetent". It's just the nature of demo jumps, and all other kinds of endeavors. There will always be accidents - the world is not perfect, nor are human beings, nor are jump conditions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #74 September 2, 2003 Quote Yet despite all the skills of NASCAR drivers, they still have accidents during races! Does that mean that they are incomptent? Does that mean that even more regulation is necessary? *** John, My point is that there are entirely to many incidents where the 'skill and judgment' factor.... or the lack of said, was instrumental in the damage and / or injury resulting. Of this there can be no dispute! The facts speak for themselves... The number of demo accidents and the resulting cost against the Demonstration Liability Insurance.. HAS ENDED THE PROGRAM! Yes, I believe that if similar percentage # ' s of liability incidents were experienced by NASCAR.. or ANY corporation.... Serious review of both methods and operational standards would be forthcoming. BEFORE a situation arose such as the one we face now. In today's environment, demo jumpers need to hold to the highest standards possible... Yes,...Murphy lurks, and 'Shit Happens' But, that doesn't account for ALL the problems this program has encountered. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #75 September 2, 2003 ***No, your conclusion does not follow from those facts. Correlation does not necessarily equal cause and effect. What it could mean instead, is that spectators at public events are just far more likely to sue someone who is "responsible" for their injuries, than spectators at a regular parachute center. Lawyers at demo events have "deep pockets" to go after. If you have insurance, they'll sue for that insurance money. If you are uninsured and have no major assets, they don't waste their time on you. The dollar amount of payouts in lawsuits has no bearing on the competence of the skydivers. QuoteThis is your post I was responding to. And I responded with "What it could mean is that they were injured by a Demo jumper who did not have the skills/judgment to do the demo. If he/she had the skill/judgment the spectator would not have been injured. That correlation equals cause and effect won't you say."My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 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
