jshiloh

Members
  • Content

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by jshiloh

  1. A lot depends on the laws of your jurisdiction. I'm assuming you're in either the US or Canada, in which case the laws will vary by state/province and even by city. Just because there's a leash law doesn't mean it's cut-and-dry. Different places (again, all the way down to the city level) have different leash laws...some only require leashes on public property, others require it anytime the dog is not behind a fence/door, others define "private property" differently (apartment common areas are a big grey area), etc. Even with an applicable leash law in place, you may still be on the hook if your dog was the aggressor, if he's ever been aggressive before, etc. In most states in the US, there are local free clinics to help people with small claims issues. Contact your local courthouse to see if they can refer you, or try the local bar association. By way of example, my county has a free small claims "hotline" that is run by the nearby law school...you'll answer a few basic questions, then describe the case, and they'll tell you what kind of legal claims/defenses/issues are involved & give recommendations on how to proceed. That being said, bear in mind that most small claims judges aren't "real" judges...they're lawyers acting as temporary judges & don't always have a handle on applicable tort law. This means that even if she doesn't have a legal leg to stand on she might win. Honestly, I'd say offer half (assuming she presents you with an actual bill showing treatment for the bite). You acknowledge your dog bit hers and you felt remorse. It also may show that you were trying to be reasonable about the situation if it ends up going to court.
  2. Most lawyers will offer a free consultation. Honestly, I suggest talking to one. Many states have specific laws regarding penalties for late paychecks. In mine, an employer can be made to pay not only the back pay plus interest, but also a penalty of up to $100 per day that the check is late. If they're jerking you around on the paycheck, you may be entitled to those penalties. Of course, taking such action may get you labelled as a troublemaker & make it harder (if not impossible) to find work at another DZ. i doubt highly the USPA would get involved, as it's not within their realm of control/policy...it's a general labor issue, not a skydiving one. Edit for quick clarification: the penalties almost always require a willful, deliberate failure to pay. Situations where a company is a couple days late in issuing a paycheck due to system failure or cash-flow problems won't qualify. But your situation--going on a year of them jerking you around, not responding to your requests, etc--likely would.
  3. It'll never happen. First, no one's going to BAN them. The only possible way that might stand a chance of happening is if could be proven that AAD's are dangerous. Not just that they have a risk of failure, but that they actually significantly increase the risk of skydiving. Then the FAA would need to rewrite some FARs (tandems require AADs) then take an almost unprecedented step of banning the use of particular equipment in a sport. For that to happen, AADs would have to be proven as a HUGE danger, which there's absolutely no supporting evidence for. Now, it is possible that if enough lawsuits go through finding AAD manufacturers liable, more manufacturers will get out of the business. But again, this is highly unlikely. It would take more than just a few lawsuits. More even than several lawsuits that make it all the way through the appeals courts. And even if many, many suits make it through, manufacturers will change the products and/labeling in order to reduce liability rather than jus cut & run. Basically, the chances of AADs being banned or eliminated from the market is about the same as the entire tandem skydiving industry being shut down. Not gonna happen. Now, in the massively extreme not-gonna-happen scenario, I'd jump without. Most of the time I don't use one anyway. I understand the risk & make the conscious decision to accept that risk.
  4. Totally side tracking the convo, but is this really true & standard? Reason I ask is because I'm aware of two fatalities at a local DZ where DZ staff were allowed to pick up, cart off & inspect all the equipment (including a repack). So I'm curious of the confiscation is based on local law enforcement policy, or if the local law enforcement around this particular DZ is oblivious to what is required.
  5. Look at the numbers by individual year the USPA publishes. Then look at the numbers by individual year (for the US only, of course) that DZ.com has in its records. You'll see several discrepancies--variances of as much as 15%. I want to make it clear that I'm not saying there's any kind of coverup on the number of deaths. My point is merely that the primary source of the "total number of skydiving fatalities" (the USPA) has questionably accurate numbers. If the raw data is questionable, then all conclusions drawn from that raw date is inherently questionable. 1) True, the bias they have has been there all along. But that doesn't change the fact that it is in their best interests to conclude & demonstrate that skydiving is getting "safer." Bias can exist for decades or even centuries, and be used to show a slow improvement. A slow improvement is actually desireable, for many reasons. 2) See above about comparing USPA numbers to DZ.com numbers. Again, I'm not saying there's any kind of shenanigans going on. What I'm saying is that whether or not the sport TRULY is getting safer is a question no one can truly answer, because such conclusion is based either on annecdotal conjecture or data which is questionable both in completeness & compilation.
  6. Hate to say it, but this is an ill-informed statement. Maybe skydiving has gotten safer, maybe it hasn't. Truth is, no one really knows because no one has ever taken a look at the "full story" (nor is it possible to do so). The USPA Keeps a record of the number of fatalities they are informed about. However, there is no actual, enforceable requirement that fatalities be reported to them. Group members may be under some kind of obligation to do so, but it's not like they'll suffer any consequences if they don't (intentionally or not). And non-group members have absolutely no obligation. Since the USPA takes no active measures to seek out the information, simply passively relying on others to tell them about fatalities, the total numbers will always be questionable. And that's just the fatalities. There is even less obligation to report serious injuries. And even those that are reported, the USPA doesn't compile overall statistics on. The FAA takes an even more lax attitude on such statistics, choosing instead to rely on the numbers provided by the industry's "self-regulating organization" (USPA). Which brings us to yet another problem. Keep in mind that the USPA is largely a marketting & lobbying organization. It is in their best interests to conclude that skydiving is getting safer. Numbers that reveal increasing safety problems hurt both the marketting of the sport as well as lobbying efforts for less government involvement. The USPA is essentially the sole source of long-term statistics. And statistics can easily be skewed to prove a desired conclusion. Just by way of example...we've all heard the statement that skydiving is "statistically" safer than driving a car. This is based on comparing the number of skydiving fatalities (~20) to the number of car driver deaths(~15,000) in a year. But if you break it down to the number of deaths per mile driven/jumped, you're "statistically" about 1,000 times more likely to die skydiving than driving. My point is, just about everyone who says it's proven that skydiving safety has improved over the last 30 years is basing that conclusion on questionably complete numbers compiled by a biased source. I don't claim it's gotten more dangerous. Just pointing out that in reality, no one truly knows whether or not the sport has gotten more dangerous, safer, or is about the same.
  7. Talk to a reputable tenant/landlord attorney in your area. Second-hand advice based on what a lawyer told a friend, or even based on another individual's experience is very risky & often wrong. Why? Because despite popular belief, not all situations like your are identical, and even small differences can make a huge difference when it comes to legal matters. One thing is for sure...if you stop paying rent it's an absolute given that you'll eventually get evicted. Sure, you may get away with a few months free rent, but then again you may not. And either way, it's going to make it harder for you to find a new rental, since landlords don't like renting to people who previously got evicted (and yes, there are ways for them to find out). You may also be screwing yourself with this particular place, since the bank and/or future owner may need to honor your lease or may be looking to rent the place. If you're already there & have been a good tenant, you're golden. But if you've stopped paying rent it's a given you'll be tossed out. Another thing to consider is that banks aren't always bound by normal landlord-tenant rules...they can many times do a 3-day eviction (or even shorter) instead of requiring 30 days notice (60 in CA due to how long you've been living there). As long as you're paying rent, I'm pretty sure they're bound by the 30/60 day notice...stop paynig & they have the legal right to kick you to the curb. Is that a risk you're willing to take? Talk with a lawyer who can sit down with you & look over ALL the facts of your individual situation & who's familiar with your local housing market (so he knows how thing "generally" flow in your area) & can advise you appropriately.
  8. LMFAO! Never happen. First, the cost of having an ambulance and medical crew on site full time would be astronomical. No DZ would stay in business with that kind of expense. Second, think about the image to any tandems, new students, visiting jumpers, etc. What do you think the majority reaction is going to be upon arrival and seeing (or learning about) a full-time ambulance and medical staff? Is it going to be: A) "Oh cool, look at that exciting flashy equipment" (maybe from some people) B) "Wow, these guys take safety very seriously and go well above & beyond the call of duty" (maybe from a very select few, and most likely only from very experienced jumpers) C) "Holy shit this place must have major injuries on a regular basis if they've got a full-time ambulance on site!" (DINGDINGDING!) They'll scare at least half their customers off with that just based on perceptions, accurate or not.
  9. Groupon cares about one thing and one thing only...they're cut of the deal. They'll promote any business if there's profit in it for them. I've seen Groupon reps distort the truth and even outright lie in the discussion forums for offers in order to encourage people to buy. I've seen them delete "unfavorable" posts and give bogus excuses as to why. By that same token, there's plenty of money to be made by DZs selling through Groupon. Trying to convince DZs to stop using Groupon would be like trying to convince DZs to stop advertising on the internet. I know not all DZs offer Groupons, but those that do aren't about to stop using it unless/until it stops being profitable. I don't know all the details of Skyride. You may have better luck convincing folks to stop associating with them. Obviously, if Skyride is teaming with Groupon to sell tandem jumps at DZs, the DZs are agreeing to it. If Skiride is a scam, or doing things that hurt the sport, or engaging in criminal activity, then warn DZs not to do business with them and that will have greater likelihood of success. At least, until they change their name again. But as long as there's money being made, DZs aren't going to stop promoting through Groupon "on principle"....that's just not how life works.
  10. Folks, catching these scammers isn't as simple as you think. They invariably operate out of foreign countries, making it extremely difficult (or even impossible) for the USPS or FBI to do anything even if they identify & track down the culprit. These scams are so well organized that they spoof IP addresses and have "shadow" shipping addresses all over the place. They also know damn good and well that these crimes are low down on the FBI's priority lists--not because they "don't care about the little guy" but simply because they don't have the resources available--so none of the scammers will "shit bricks" if you tell them you've turned things over to the authorities. These scams rake in BILLIONS of dollars world-wide, and aren't run by some teen in a basement trying to skim enough money for a new Xbox. I'm by no means trying to discourage people from reporting these frauds to the cops. But be realistic...if you think you're going to be able to out scam these scammers, or bring down the network by yourself, they'd already be out of business because someone else would have already done it.
  11. It's a scam. Most of these scams center around an "overseas" purchase of automobiles, which is why his original message asked for the car make & model (sloppy copy & paste). Here's how the scam works.... He'll want to send you a cashier's check for the price of the goods plus a buch extra for "special shipping." His shipper will be in touch with you shortly. He'll tell you that it's easier & cheaper for him to cut one check for the whole amount & have you use the excess money to pay the shipper. The shipper will insist on getting paid before picking the item up...he'll want you to mail a cashier's check, wire the money, or provide a bank account number for electronic transfer. He will NOT accept a credit card for payment. Now, typically banks won't put holds on cashier's checks. Even when they do, they are limitedby federal law to something like 10 days (I don't recall the specific time limit). So, you'll deposit the check he sends, and believe everything is fine once your bank releases the funds. You then pay the shipping company. Problem is, the check they send you is a forgery & usually drawn on a foreign bank (which delays notification). And the "shipper" is completely ficticious & part of the scam. At some point after you pay the shipper, your bank tells you the original check was a forgery/fake & yanks the total amount back out of your account. Net result: that $$ you paid to the shipping company (typically several hundred or even thousand dollars) came out of your pocket & the scammer just got your cash. If you provided a bank account number for electronic transfer, it's a good bet the account will be drained. There are a few variations with regard to the need for excess money (asking you to forward the excess to another "seller" or somesuch) but that's the gist of it.
  12. Yes, I think it's fair. I'd even say life withOUT parole would have been fair. Even if the robbers posed an immediate threat to his safety, justifying pulling the gun and firing in self defense, he greatly exceeded the limits of self-defense. Taking the time to fetch another gun, then repeatedly shooting an unarmed & unconscious person isn't self-defense. The kid posed no threat to him anymore. He intentionally, consciously, and deliberately murdered a defenseless person. Vengeance like this is never legally (or morally) justifiable.
  13. I saw something recently at a local DZ that piqued my curiosity/concern. A 1st time tandem student showed up for his jump with his arm in a sling. It didn't appear that anyone at the DZ questioned him about it, the extent or nature of the injury, etc. Now, I'm not a tandem instructor, so don't know whether or not this is a big deal. But my logic says this could have been a less than safe situation for the student. So I'm curious what those more experienced than myself think. If a tandem student showed up for his jump with his arm in a sling, would you go ahead with the jump no questions asked? Would you refuse to jump? Or something in between, asking questions about the nature of the injury and proceeding from there?
  14. I won't publicly name names. Sorry. But suffice to say, it's nowhere near Orange
  15. I'm not saying it's common. Just saying that I've encountered this at at least 1 DZ. An AFF student brought beer on his first jump. Everyone at the DZ was happy & thankful about it. But they then Expected him to bring beer the next time. When he didn't, they got pissed. It wasn't just one or two people, it was a large majority. And it wasn't just good-natured ribbing, it was hostility and open name calling. It got so bad that as soon as the student was done with his AFF he switched DZs. Surprisingly (or maybe not) most the regulars took a "good ridance" attiude that the "dick who held out on the beer" had left. It's one of the many reasons I won't return to that DZ. My cautioning statement to the OP is because if this attitude is present at one DZ there is the possibility it exists elsewhere. It's definitely not common, but it's out there.
  16. I would wait until you complete your AFF before bringing beer. I know of at least 1 DZ where if you bring beer on the first jump it will be Expected that you bring some more for each and every training jump after that. Failure to do so will result in you instantly being labeled a "dick" and ostracized. No joke. I'm not saying that's the norm, but if one DZ is like that, chances are others at least a few are the same. Similar thing goes for when you complete your AFF...you better bring a case of good beer or risk a backlash. If you want to do something nice for your instructor & the DZ (which I fully encourage) bring a cooler full of water if it's hot out, or spring for lunch, or something similar.
  17. I know this isn't exactly what you're asking for, but thought I'd share. The day before my first skydive a co-worker said to me "I hope you make it all the way down." My response: "that part will happen pretty definitely."
  18. Priority should be the student. Sure, the student should have been trained how to land off. But bear in mind that he just had a rather significant event that required a cutaway. How many students are going to panic, blank out, or otherwise have problems? That being said, I don't think there's a "one size fits all" answer to the poll question. While priority should be given to the student's wellbeing, that doesn't necessarily mean following the student down must happen. Ground crew may be in as good a position to get to the student's site. The student may be heading to an area that is unsafe for the TI to land in. The student may land fine & the TI can see he is ok. Or many other situations may make it unnecessary to follow the student down.
  19. While filming a tandem jump the jumper ended up in a long spot (specific cause unclear). After clearing some power lines at the edge of the LZ the jumper apparently initiated a 180 turn at an altitude of 40-50 feet, attempting to land into the wind. Cano
  20. I think that's a stretch of an interpretation. The "indirectly" supplied equipment (harness, container, AAD, canopy) are all a part of a single system, and referred to as such in the BSR. The altimeter is a completely separate piece of equipment. Additionally, the BSR does not merely say that an altimeter is required...it specifies a "visually accessible" altimeter. The only way an instructor's altimeter is visible to the student is if the instructor consciously and intentionally shoves his wrist in front of the student. This is flat out wrong. While there is no rule that specifically addresses a "green light," FAR 91.3 specifies "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft." This is a blanket, catch-all rule that basically establishes that the pilot is the final authority and is in command of what goes on. You do what the pilot tells you, period. If the pilot indicates that you are not to jump, you don't jump. This is not open to DZ interpretation or subject to DZ "policy." Even if it were, it's stupid to disobey it. There are many reasons why a pilot would turn off the green light, many of which can present a very real and substantial risk of injury or death to jumpers. For all you know, another aircraft has improperly entered the airspace. Even absent the FAR, BSR, and common sense, going strictly with your interpretation, I think it's clear that there was a problem here. The original message indicated that one of the instructors "yelled at" the jumpers NOT to go because the green light went out. That indicates that DZ "policy" is to not go when the light is out. I would suggest that when you observe complacency such as this you bring it to the attention of staff members (preferably, the owner or manager). Don't be confrontational about it, simply explain that this is what happened and you were curious as to whether or not this was an issue. If the owner brushes it off as nothing, find a new DZ because it's highly likely that they are complacent about other, more important issues as well.
  21. I find it somewhat amusing that you espouse people taking personal responsibility for their own actions in one breath, then say that someone who acts negligently should be absolved of responsibility because of a piece of paper. If the TI screwed up, shouldn't he be held accountable and take responsibility for his mistake? Or should a blanket "waiver of liability" protect him from that responsibility?