waited 6 years only to realize. in General Skydiving Discussions August 28 · Edited August 28 by DougH On 8/26/2020 at 6:48 PM, wolfriverjoe said: In a perfect world, maybe. But the problem is that if/when someone gets hurt, the lawyers cast as big of a net as they can. There's no way any manufacturer can shield themselves from that liability. Yes, but does that reality really vary between a 17 year old jumper and a 30 year old jumper? 17 year old jumper goes in and the parents/estate will sue everyone if they get the right (wrong) lawyer gets in their ear. Same outcome is just as likely with our 30 year old. I see the argument on a tandem jump, for example where the Sigma specific waiver is shielding UPT, would be deemed invalid for a underage jumper. There is much more of a relationship between UPT and a tandem student. UPT makes the rigs, but they also train instructors, and they have a whole system that continues to interact with their equipment, the equipment owners, and their instructors following the sale of a tandem system. That is not the case with non-tandem sport parachutes. Aerodyne doesn't have evaluators to certify instructors that are taking students on AFF jumps using their student rigs. There isn't a continued relationship there after the sale to the rig owner. Excluding tandem jumps I don't think that the DZ waiver, regardless of its legality, offers any protection for the manufacturers. Think of all of the other risk activities where equipment manufacturers have products that are used by minors. Climbing, skiing, driving. None of them are lobbying to have all use of their products restricted until the age of majority.