• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Everything posted by speuci

  1. Best Practices are to configure "Friend Lists." You can specify what portions of your profile can be seen by people on a particular list (in privacy settings). When you accept friends, you can move them onto a friend list when you accept. My default is to share a lot of stuff. I keep a friends list for co-workers that excludes status updates and pictures. I keep a friends list for people I barely know that excludes almost everything. A bit of overhead to setup, but well worth it. Sadly, this feature doesn't get nearly the publicity it deserves.
  2. This will be my last post on this thread - Tom, thanks for the lengthy reply, very informative - I greatly appreciate that you took the time to type it. Jeff - I was going to respond point-counter-point with you but i've decided not too. I'm not the least embarassed by the things I posted, most of what i've pointed out is my modest experiences at 5 dropzones over 2.5 years in the sport, and differing attitutes toward newbies that may or may not impact safety. Perhaps you already know everything, but I know that I certainly don't. IMO, experience is what is truly valuable here, and let's face it, neither you nor I have it. Since it seems likely that you and I will be on the same load in the not too distant future... I'll leave it with a "Blue skies"
  3. This next part is sincere: thank you for teaching me this - this whole discussion probably hasn't swayed much opinion, but now I know more. I just checked with two similiary situated jump buddies - none of us is familiar with this term (until now). Perhaps at your DZ (which may in fact be Lodi) this term is part of the first jump course, I dunno. However, with regard to that question, I asked to be educated and you did so in a mocking way. As a USPA ambassador and a person who may draw her living from the sport - you would be well served by improving your attitude toward persons such as myself.
  4. What is a cut jump run? There isn't enough context in this thread, the term is not used in the SIM, a forum search doesn't reveal a good hit... If I paid for a hop-n-pop, I would assume the hop-n-pop is the same as one of the ones I did to get my A. You're "nothing to ask in the plane" is emblematic of the problem. There's no doubt that if I delayed the load because something didn't look right, and dare I ask you a question, (a USPA instructor WHOM I SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE AS A RESOURCE) would yell at me in an irritated voice, shaking me up... And I'll say it again, these may not be the facts of the Lodi incident, but they may not be far off...
  5. I've never been in a plane such as this, so I can't imagine what that would like like. But, to be honest, prior to this thread debate, I probably would have jumped assuming the pilot knew what he was doing. Now, I'll probably ask and risk getting yelled at by the experienced jumpers.
  6. Here we go again... If the administrator let a suit eclipse the statute of limitations against a DZ that owned a lot of planes, probably a TON of coin... Perhaps you don't realize the estate laws and duties vary state by state. I see you are in Texas, i am not. Comments like this make it seem like I have a stake in the game. The only interest I have in the outcome of the lawsuit is the secondary affect it will have on the safety practices adopted by the DZs I jump at. AND BACHING! Thanks for making my ENTIRE POINT. I don't know a lot about skydiving, even though i've been *told* things by hypocritical persons such as yourself! I'm asking people like you to look after people like me, understanding that WE DON"T KNOW WHAT WE DON'T KNOW - and your attitudes are "we told it to you the other day." You simultaneously tell us that: 1) We can't know things 2) We are solely responsible for knowing things Lovely! Oh yeah, and across the board, salespersons are far scummier than lawyers. Just thought I'd throw that in
  7. This was a good laugh But given that you appearently jump at Lodi.... I may be the least of your problems (and that was a joke, I've heard find things about Lodi Tandem)
  8. I don't care what you believe. Perhaps their was no viable lawsuit (i.e. no pull) Perhaps their was no heir around to check the trustee. If you think you're understanding of the legal system trumps mine, I could careless!
  9. I admire your protectiveness of the sport - but my understanding of the law is that the trustee/administrator will be under a fiduciary duty to maximize the value of your estate for the benefit of your heirs, regardless of your wishes (failure to do so would expose them to liability). Moreover, while you can frequently waive your right to sue for some things, I don't believe you can waive the right of others (e.g. your estate) to sue for wrongful death. Not legal advice, but this is how I recall the workings... No doubt some of you will reply to this as *another example of broken laws in the U.S.* - but think it through and I think you'll realize who benefits from this.
  10. It's easier to criticize, hard to fix. Fact remains that across the board, products come out fairly safe and well designed, and problems are addressed quickly. Back to the main thread - the thread asked "how do you feel about Lodi" and I responded to the statements which I largely perceived as "drop zones can do no wrong" - a statement I clearly disagree with (as well as some of the early posters in the thread).
  11. Well - that would be fact specific. If he had hit in this instance, I would hope that he would share liability for the property damage, just like (again speculation if certain above facts were true) the DZ would share liability for his injuries. Hell, those could net out possibly with a net liability of jumper to DZ, I dunno. I'm not pro jumper, or pro DZ. All I'm saying is their are aspects of the sport that I consider to be problematic, clearly some of you don't feel that way, but I bet some do. The main aspect being this "every man for himself" attitude that occasionally fails to teach proper skills to participants. To the poster before - if he had hit and knocked off the tail, I bet you would have died - and you better beleive that the trustee/administrator of your estate would have brought a lawsuit against the DZ.
  12. I doubt he ignored it, he probably failed to realize the instruction at the time he exited the plane. I would consider this both a teaching failure and a learning failure. As you are USPA Coach and Tandem Instructor, I'm surprised that you would come to such a stern conclusion as to summarily conclude "His fault." Then again, perhaps I'm not that surprised after all.
  13. I believe one time right before exit (or even a sign by the door indicating "DO NOT JUMP ON EXIT - LOW TAIL") would have sufficed.
  14. Appearently, not that much of an idiot if I assume some of the facts in this thread are true (i.e. numerous near collisions, lots of verbal warnings, no one mentioning to the jumper at exit that he was in danger) - and I apologize if I incorrectly addressed your earlier point. Skydiving has a tremendous learning curve and is rife with danger. Some people are great at looking after other members and helping them scale the curve, but many (that I've come across) are not. They rush people out of the plane, get frustrated when you ask for a buddy check, etc. This latter group increases the risks of the sport for the younger participants. Yeah the kid may have been told - but he likely wasn't told contemporaneous with his exit from the plane, and he probably could have been told if someone gave a damn (speculation).
  15. Gimme a break. I'm advocating that experienced people look out for less experienced people to reduce incidents SUCH AS THIS ONE, and i've merely mentioned that maybe the lawsuit at hand will bring about some changes at other dropzones. Many of you can use the veil of "self-responsibility" as your excuse for not helping others. I believe you are doing the sport at large a great disservice, but hey, thats my opinion. And I personally consider a 100 jump jumper inexperienced, but hey, thats my opinion too.
  16. I agree that strike suits (no legal basis, used to extract a settlement) are a consequence of the legal system - but I disagree that "The majority of lawsuits we see filed are for self caused accidents." While that might be the conclusion of most people in this forum, if the pilot in this case turned on the jump light but didn't level the plane, then I don't consider this a self caused accident. Similarly, I don't consider the passenger who fell out of her a tandem harness a "self caused" accident. Its a shame Lodi is getting sued, but if they ahve adopted needlessly reckless procedures that expose others to unecessary dangers, then I think a lawsuit is the proper response insofar as it will effect changes at other dropzones (albeit, maybe at the cost of the offending dropzone)
  17. Just because a solo sign-off clears one for jumping solo, it does not that experienced members of the sport should stop educating the recent AFF grad. Reading USPA literature won't work for most people (myself included) - experience is necessary to make learning concrete. I could read the USPA manual 1000 times and not retain the most important points. I need mentorship, and constant advice and knowledge transfer from older members. In my opinion, your attitude (when pervasive) results in too few people transferring knowledge, which results in too much injuries. Too many people (again in my opinion) use the "you're responsible for yourself" philosphy as an excuse to stop mentoring the younger divers.
  18. Again - please note I'm making no criticism w/r/t Lodi, I'm criticizing what i've seen at dropzones in general. That's great w/r/t gear, however, dropzones have a bigger responsibility - provided a safe landing area, setting appropriate landing patterns, constantly edjucating the younger participants of the sport. DZs should excel in all these areas to again *reduce incidents* (and in case you didn't read it the first time, incidents lead to bad press and rising insurance costs which increases costs pf partipation in the sport and reduces the number of participants) Often the jumper will be solely at fault, and often he/she won't be. What pisses me off is that people don't take many simple steps to edjucate young jumpers, those who lack the experience and are thus more likely to be injured. You may think that mentioning a low-tail on a plane to a jumper with 100 jumps absolves you of all responsibility (morally and legally) - and you may be right - but you may not be. Perhaps a paper sign by the door would be better, perhaps a green/red jump light - I don't know.... but this attitude leads experienced jumpers to disregard and demean young jumpers - it makes the young jumpers less likely to process and understand, and more reluctant to ask questions.
  19. You know what I find amusing? The google ads on the side of this thread. NOT! Here I am trying to find out who else has a problem with Lodi being sued and look who's advertising. This is a shortsighted response, not uncommon on these sorts of threads. IMO, what does the most damage to the sport is INCIDENTS, and when INCIDENTS can be prevented through minor changes in practices and policies they should be taken. Nontheless, it seems that my opinion is not shared by may of the older members of the sport. These people often hold the opinion that once AFF is completed, you're on your own. I've seen this behavior manifest itself in many ways, not the least of which was someone yelling at me for attempting to verify my spot on a packed load. Coming back to the point at hand, my post is not saying anything about the particular facts of this matter - even reading this thread and the incidents thread, I'm woefully uninformed to decide where fault lies. I probably differ from you in that I can at least recognize that liabitily is often shared (in varying amounts) between jumper and DZ. Proper safety measures will shift those relative balances, and hopefully reduce incidents. Less incidents will reduce the stigma, which will feed into better recruitment. Sometimes, a law suit is needed to induce these changes, expressly when people share the aforementioned attitudes. I don't follow your advertising comment - but in case you're wondering, I'm a corporate attorney - I wouldn't not the first thing about handling litigation.
  20. Perhaps you misunderstood the point of that portion of my comment. The hypothetical is merely trying to flush-out personal opinions as to at which point responsibility for injury becomes shared between the DZ and the jumper. Clearly that was not the case here, but in my mind, one's answer to the question above bears significantly on how much credence I give their opinion in general.
  21. I always get amusement from reading these sorts of posts, probably because going through law school with an "accept responsibility for yourself" attitude put me on a direct collision with economic theories w/r/t tort law. If Lodi could have taken steps to mitigate the risk of injury at low cost, I hope this lawsuit (or the likely settlement) exacts a steep toll, so as to encourage other similiarly situated drop zones to adopt similar practices (i.e. internalize their liability costs). For those of you cursing the jumper, where do you personally draw the line w/r/t the injury no longer being the jumper's sole responsibility? What if (extreme hypothetical) the pilot was intoxicated and forgot to level the plane, at that point do you still allocate responsibility to the jumper? At some point the scale needs to start tipping... (edited to fix typos)
  22. Are you also contending that European products are safer and better designed? How about another view - non US manufacturers stay out of the market because they can get away with making crappier products and they don't have to internalize the harms they cause. Not saying anything about any non-US manufacturerers. To be honest, don't know anything about them, but I think all I see (excluding Cyprus) is US gear at the DZ. Also - evidence rules exclude post-accident improvements, as mentioned numerous times.
  23. [QUOTE]There is what seems to be a flaw in our legal system that you need to foresee all potential problems in advance. I look at the Vioxx suits as a counterpart in the medical side. Most car improvements seem to come from experimentation in real world results as well. Remember the disaster with the passive seat belts attached to the doors? If the lap belt wasn't used, they could fail quite badly in an accident that opened the door. [/QUOTE] What might appear to be a flaw is actually a policy decisions designed to force the manufacturers to internalize some measure of societal harms as an incentive to either i) make their products safe, or ii) properly warn people about the risks of their products to the extent that it is not obvious that the products are safe. Perhaps it was obvious that these rigs were improperly used, but if not, then maybe Strong should pay for failing to either educate, supervise, modify, or take some other action to make these safe. Can you imagine what kind of crap would be on the market if manufacturers weren't held liable for poorly desinged (or even well desinged but flawed or dangerous products?) Also, many (if not all) states evidence laws prevent SRMs (subsequent remedial measures - i.e. product fixes) from being used as evidence in a products liability case. That is also a policy decision (and one you probably agree with) that encourages manufactures to improve design flaws or warning failures. Is the system as good as it could be? Of course not, law is an imperfect system. Can it be better? Not obvious... every *improvement* probably just results in a rebalance of harms.
  24. Hmmm.. CivPro was a while ago for me too and not a great class for me, but I remember summary judgement being a hotly contested mechanism for judicial efficiency in the face of overloaded court dockets. There might be factual issues in dispute, but the judge might conclude that no reasonable jury could rule X way under the facts at hand, and dispose of the case one way or the other. I.e I sue you and say that you beat me up (my fact), and you state that you were out-of-state and produce video footage corroborating such statement (your facts). Judge might dismiss if my fact is necessary for my case as my facts viewed against yours leave no 'reasonable' basis for mine to be true as determined by a jury.