USPA Raises Minimum Age to 18... Whatcha think?

[peek 21]

chuckakers

A 16 year old can get a pilot's license but not skydive? Does anyone know what prompted this?

PIA/manufacturer lobbying. They have been working on the USPA BOD for some time. They succeeded this time.

I voted against this change because I believe a DZO should be able to decide the amount of liability they want to assume.

[pchapman 279]

MikeTJumps

but in order for the industry to survive, some protection of it is needed. These are just two of the steps that are finally being made towards that end.

Whatever the realities of the liability situation in the US, it seems this move is a capitulation, giving in and letting the world of lawyers and liability win. And imposing that view of the world on all USPA skydivers in the US instead of letting them make choices on their own. Which is why some jumpers will always hate this kind of rule.

You may see liability as something real and dangerous, while some of us further from the action see it as something theoretical. If there's a threat from a stupid system, don't give in to it. The industry made it this far, why should anything be different than in 1960? But if someone is closer to the lawsuits that actually happen, or have more assets in the industry, yes I understand that their opinion may be different.

I've done enough skydiving in my life that if the whole industry in the US goes down because of some stupid legal system, I can walk away. Your problem, good riddance.

[jonstark 8]

[X] other

It's about damn time!

jon

[DougH 270]

NWFlyer

Based on a couple different posts on Facebook (from board members, as well as from Blue Skies Mag) it looks like USPA has voted to raise the minimum age to skydive to 18 across the board.

Thoughts?

I think it is fucking bullshit.

This board apparently represents only DZO's and gear manufacturers.

First they raised container opening altitude. Now they raise the first just age. These moves were totally for the benefit of gear makers and large dropzone owners.

Our board shouldn't be in the business of improving the legal defense of gear makers. I don't think I elected anyone to the United States Parachute Makers Association.

If I ran my own DZ I personally wouldn't want the legal liability of 16 year old static line students, but that is a business decision that should be mine to make.

I have been a member of a club that is a not-for-profit. There is a long history at this club of fun jumpers kids, long term drop zone brats, starting to jump at age 16 and going on to become word class skydivers.

The club didn't take joe shmoe's kid off the street. It was, and should continue to be our choice to have members kids start jumping at 16. The club's goal is to grow sport skydiving, and it was our choice to weigh the extra risks against fostering the clubs mission.

I am not impressed with this board.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[dzswoop717 5]

Do you think that if a 16 year old kid was paralized sking, snowboarding, motocross racing, skateboarding, BMX racing, Or playing football, the powers to be would have a knee jerk reaction and stop all under 18's from participating in these sports. These injuries happen every year in the prementioned sports. USPA didn't think this one through. DZ kids across the US will now be forced to go to Uafilliated DZ's or put off jumping until age 18. BUMMER! I had a calender For the last year of my 12 year wait to turn 16 so I could jump. Crossing off the days was one of the very best feelings I can remember of my preskydiving youth. To add 730 days to my calender back then would have destroyed me. How many 15 year old dz brats are counting the days? For those of you who started jumping after age 18 and were not raised on a DZ, you have NO idea how much we look forward to turning 16 so we could jump. Some of you with the biggest opinion don't even have kids, so you could care less. USPA screwed up on this one. It has always been up to the DZO to allow 16 year olds to jump. Most DZ's in my area have a minimum age of 18 by choice. Now, because of one accident they kill so many kids dreams.

[stratostar 5]

Quote

Do you think that if a 16 year old kid was paralized sking, snowboarding, motocross racing, skateboarding, BMX racing, Or playing football, the powers to be would have a knee jerk reaction and stop all under 18's from participating in these sports. These injuries happen every year in the prementioned sports. USPA didn't think this one through.

That is because those industries have the right kind of advocacy that get's them legal protections, USPA has a PR firm. With those others, it's a known assumed risk... yet for some reason you can't claim you didn't know hitting a tree skiing would kill you or leave you in chair for life... yet you can make that retarded claim with skydiving and get away with it, as the current laws are.

Quote

DZ kids across the US will now be forced to go to Uafilliated DZ's

Just so everyone understands, if you are a member of USPA and rated as an instructor by USPA< and you go to a non USPA dz and do instructional work, that is in clear violation of the USPA rules or BSR's or even FAA FAR's, they can still take your ratings, regardless of the fact the jumps were at a non GM DZ.

You have to let your membership and ratings expire, then go make the jumps at a non gm dz, at that point there is nothing USPA can do to you for BSR violations, like taking your 16 yr old up for a first jump.

Also they are asking USPA to require all dz's to name mfg's as third parties in the wavers. And the gear mfg's are now going to publish no one under 18 is allowed to use the gear... I wonder if that applies to bail out rigs too, like those that 14 yr old solo glider pilots wear.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[BIGUN 1,307]

I won't say its the "Best Decision" made in years; but I agree with it.

1. As to the point of flying at 16 years old vs. skydiving. Irrelevant - One can get Life & Liability insurance at 16 years old to fly, but not to skydive.

2. While a DZO can make a decision about their willingness to accept the liability; they're also making that decision for the pilots, riggers, packers, etc. who in most cases are independent contractors.

3. I was a TI back when we had to sign a contract with the Manufacturers not to take anyone < 18. I went to another DZ and was asked to take a kid celebrating their 16th birthday and refused. Explained that I had entered into an agreement with the manufacturer and that by violating that; opened myself to incurring the burden of liability. I worked too long in this life to get what little I have and was not willing to jeopardize that. I was taken out of rotation and was fine with that.

4. Most States won't allow a parent to sign an Assumption of Risk for their children <18.

It's just not worth the ~$300.00 in gross revenue to potential costs for the liability incurred - all around.

Don't like the rule.. go open your own DZ and take on that liability for yourself.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[skydived19006 4]

DougH

I think it is fucking bullshit.

This board apparently represents only DZO's and gear manufacturers.

Possibly because the USPA has become more of a trade organization than an individual membership organization. Skydiving is not a sport or leisure activity, it's a business and this trade organization will act to protect that business over the interests of the individual.

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[MikeTJumps 4]

There is nothing theoretical about Steve Snyder's Enterprises being sued out of the civilian market, Relative Workshop, Strong Enterprises and Sun Path being sued and losing over a million dollars in judgments, SSK and Cypres being sued and being out several hundred thousand dollars for something they had no part in because a rigger failed to put the closing loop through the cutter.

You are welcome to write some big checks to those companies to cover their losses due to litigation both in the past and in the future if you feel strongly about it.

Mike Turoff
Instructor Examiner, USPA
Co-author of Parachuting, The Skydiver's Handbook

[diablopilot 2]

topdocker

To make a BSR (S meaning Safety!) which has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with litigation is just ridiculous! The BOD is just showing how much they are willing to give into the manufacturers. Every time they have asked the BOD to do something, the BOD has eventually caved and its total BS. The BOD passed this once before and it was repealed because many BOD members became uncomfortable with the ramifications after the vote. What has changed? USPA is no more responsible for keeping manufacturers or DZ's from getting sued than they are preventing heart attacks at soccer games.

Members should start emailing their Regional Directors that this vote is totally screwed, too many of the BOD members have direct links to the requesting manufacturers for there to not be a conflict of interest.

Since electronic voting is working so well for USPA, maybe we should just put in a rule that all BSR's must be approved by a quorum of members. This will let the BOD go back to the business of running operations and allow the membership to dictate safety, not the manufacturers.

top

This. A thousand times this. Only when members care enough will Board Members be held accountable for their votes, and be responsible to the entire membership.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[dzswoop717 5]

Was an under age student skydiver the reason for any of these law suit? Any time an under age kid gets hurt doing ANYTHING, there can be legal action taken against everyone involved. If a kid drowns while taking scuba diving lessons, every one including the manufactures gets sued. If an adult drowns while taking scuba diving lessons, everyone including the manufactures gets sued. What is the difference. It is a sue happy world, if you are afraid of the risk involved get out of the business.
If a 15 year old kid sneaks his dad's old rig out of the closet, climbs a local antenna, and leaps to his death. The manufacturer of the equipment can still be sued. You can't stop people from slapping a lawsuit against you. I just don't think that the number of 16 year old students is high enough to make the risk that much greater. I do understand the extra liability that a 16 year old with no DZ upbringing puts on a DZ but, kids that are raised on a DZ and know and understand the sport, are less of a liability than a whuffo off the street, of any age, making there first jump after spending a total of 4 to 6 hrs of their entire life on a DZ! USPA's decision makes no sense to me. attempting to reduce liability this way is like trying to save a sinking ship with a dixie cup.

[JohnMitchell 16]

topdocker

To make a BSR (S meaning Safety!) which has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with litigation is just ridiculous! The BOD is just showing how much they are willing to give into the manufacturers.

I couldn't agree with you more.

[mark 107]

dzswoop717

If a kid drowns while taking scuba diving lessons, every one including the manufactures gets sued. If an adult drowns while taking scuba diving lessons, everyone including the manufactures gets sued. What is the difference.

The difference is that waivers are an effective means of thwarting lawsuits, and kids can't sign enforceable waivers.

Mark

[Southern_Man 0]

mark

***If a kid drowns while taking scuba diving lessons, every one including the manufactures gets sued. If an adult drowns while taking scuba diving lessons, everyone including the manufactures gets sued. What is the difference.

The difference is that waivers are an effective means of thwarting lawsuits, and kids can't sign enforceable waivers.

Mark

Having good discussion of this and many other issues depend on basing the discussion on facts. I've pointed out once that you are simply wrong in making such a blanket assertion. There are states that will uphold waivers for minors, although others won't. At least six states (California, Florida, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Ohio and Wisconsin) have upheld waivers signed by a parent or guardian. some states have declined to uphold such waivers. still others lack a clearly defined body of law.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[dzswoop717 5]

I understand that but, isn't it sad that a 55 year old, out of shape, with heart condition, mid life crissis , with no aviation back ground, can walk in off the street and make a static line jump with 4 hours of exposure to the sport while a 16 year old healthy, physically fit, Years on a DZ, can pack a rig in 5 minutes, Has listened to and whitnessed thousands of jump stories and skydives, can't. It makes no sense at all when put in this context. It really sucks that America has turned into such a bullshit , sue happy country.

[Blis 1]

MikeTJumps

There is nothing theoretical about Steve Snyder's Enterprises being sued out of the civilian market, Relative Workshop, Strong Enterprises and Sun Path being sued and losing over a million dollars in judgments, SSK and Cypres being sued and being out several hundred thousand dollars for something they had no part in because a rigger failed to put the closing loop through the cutter.

You are welcome to write some big checks to those companies to cover their losses due to litigation both in the past and in the future if you feel strongly about it.

The beaty of "free america"...

[mark 107]

Southern_Man

There are states that will uphold waivers for minors, although others won't. At least six states (California, Florida, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Ohio and Wisconsin) have upheld waivers signed by a parent or guardian. some states have declined to uphold such waivers. still others lack a clearly defined body of law.

I'm asking because I don't know: do the waivers in those six states bind the minor when he or she reaches majority? That is, would they allow an 18 year old to sue for injuries incurred when he or she was 16 or 17?

Mark

[Boogers 0]

MikeTJumps

If we don't take a stand on the age requirement, what do you think will happen when some very powerful US Representative's or Senator's offspring get injured in a skydive? Can you say over-regulation will be imminent?

So instead of waiting for the government to over-regulate us, we'll just over-regulate ourselves.

I'm not so sure that's an improvement...

[pchapman 279]

MikeTJumps

There is nothing theoretical about Steve Snyder's Enterprises being sued out of the civilian market, Relative Workshop, Strong Enterprises and Sun Path being sued and losing over a million dollars in judgments, SSK and Cypres being sued and being out several hundred thousand dollars

"And that's just because of 16 year olds?"
Still, that's useful info.

One problem we have about lawsuits in skydiving is the lack of publicity they get, and the short memories we have. You personally must know a lot more about the above cases, but many of us don't.

For example, I could say, "SSE was sued, really? I just remember Snyder dying the in F-86 crash. Sun Path sued? I remember looking for info about a case regarding a torn reserve pilot chute in 2002, but found absolutely nothing useful on dz.com about that except a long letter by Mark Schlatter. Did Sun Path pay the $200,000 judgment against them? RWS sued? When, how, did they win, what did they spend? Strong sued? Yeah, whatever happened to the one about the misadjusted tandem harness dropping a passenger, and then Strong going into some sort of bankruptcy protection? SSK, have they ever lost a suit? Whatever happened to the Brooke Baum case from years ago, that's the only suit I've ever actually heard about against them?"

Your concerns are absolutely valid. But the average skydiver, while being concerned about lawsuits in the industry, just doesn't hear much about them. There's no rough online summary like we sometimes get for fatalities. Unless a company actually goes under, one might not notice that a company spent a lot of money on defense, or actually had to pay a judgment against them. I can understand that manufacturers and DZO's sometimes don't want to advertise suits against them. But without getting some publicity for their cause, it makes it hard for skydivers to be sympathetic.

(We don't need to go into those cases in this thread. Just making an example.)

[topdocker 0]

dzswoop717

I understand that but, isn't it sad that a 55 year old, out of shape, with heart condition, mid life crissis , with no aviation back ground, can walk in off the street and make a static line jump with 4 hours of exposure to the sport while a 16 year old healthy, physically fit, Years on a DZ, can pack a rig in 5 minutes, Has listened to and whitnessed thousands of jump stories and skydives, can't. It makes no sense at all when put in this context. It really sucks that America has turned into such a bullshit , sue happy country.

No, the truly sad part was skydiving for years insulated itself from that BS, but the gear manufacturers (through PIA) have brought it to us.

The reality is that USPA has given the US manufacturers the ability to keep foreign gear from infiltrating the market. If a company in say South America started making tandem rigs with no age restriction on them, the US makers would be at a huge disadvantage. DZ's would look to buy gear with less restrictions on it, less hassle and the potential for more profit. But the USPA BOD has ensured that can't happen by making a SAFETY rule! OMG! It's about SAFETY, not liability! Not about protecting the market

There is nothing in the USPA constitution about protecting the interests or assets of anybody involved in this sport. Education, promotion, competition, but nothing about asset protection. The BOD can say all they want that this is the right move to protect skydiving, but the reality is that it is merely a demonstration of the effects of influence and power by the manufacturers.

Wonder what the manufacturers will bring us next?

top

Jump more, post less!

[Southern_Man 0]

mark

***There are states that will uphold waivers for minors, although others won't. At least six states (California, Florida, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Ohio and Wisconsin) have upheld waivers signed by a parent or guardian. some states have declined to uphold such waivers. still others lack a clearly defined body of law.

I'm asking because I don't know: do the waivers in those six states bind the minor when he or she reaches majority? That is, would they allow an 18 year old to sue for injuries incurred when he or she was 16 or 17?

Mark

Yes, those six states allow parents to waive liability on behalf of their minor children and have upheld those as valid.

The law of waivers is enormously complicated, not least because there are 50 different states, and probably beyond the scope of this thread. Most (but I hesitate to say all) states allow minors to assume risks inherent in adventure sports such as skydiving. Many will not allow the parents to waive the liability for negligence of the drop zone towards their minor children. Those are really two different issues. some states will not allow the waiver of liability of negligence at all for adults. None, so far as I know, will allow the waiver of gross negligence for adults, minors, or anybody else.

Another huge difference between skydiving and other industries, such as the ski industry as mentioned above, is simply one of scale. Ski resorts are huge industries and can afford to litigate their waivers. In skydiving, with only a few exceptions, drop zones cannot afford to win these lawsuits, much less lose them.

edited for clarity, hope it is better now.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Southern_Man

...Another huge difference between skydiving and other industries, such as the ski industry as mentioned above, is simply one of scale. Ski resorts are huge industries and can afford to litigate their waivers. In skydiving, with only a few exceptions, drop zones cannot afford to win these lawsuits, much less lose them.

The big industries also have liability insurance available to them. So it becomes the insurance company's issue to litigate or settle.

No such insurance available in skydiving.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[gowlerk 2,190]

This is clearly an abuse of the term BSR. It can not possibly be unsafe in America, but safe elsewhere in the world. BSRs should be used for safety issues only, not liability issues. The PIA should not be allowed to lean on the USPA to create BSRs that have NOTHING to do with SAFETY.

This will cost USPA several member DZs and further splinter the skydiving community. Hopefully the frightened, cowed by the PIA faction of the USPA BoD will find itself replaced for it's short sighted narrow viewpoint and will be replaced by others with the good of the sport and membership more firmly in mind.

Just say no to nanny states.
Ken Gowler (CSPA member)

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Southern_Man 0]

***

Good point, thanks.


I don't like the idea that BSRs are being used for liability issues (they are not BLRs).

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[jonstark 8]

There is still no regulation or rule with the force of law to prohibit anyone from taking a 16 yr old up on a jump. If you wish to then feel free to do so.

Any lawyer would easily make you look like a scofflaw rule breaking renegade in front of a jury though.

jon