Skydiver suing jump outfit - News story

[beowulf 1]

Quote

That's exactly the kind of thing that gets things messed up. It's like having 2 employees working the same cash and should money go missing there is no way to know. I completely understand that TM are doing the best they can and it's not their "fault" but really, isn't it time for someone to step up and take the responsibility since this is a life-or-death sport and when you have a whole bunch of people pointing fingers at each other what good does it actually do? Personally I think it should be the man in charge (DZO). It's sad because in real life nobody gives a crap about these little things especially when you have like a million things to do at once and it would just be impractical to check everything every single time, but if that's what it takes to live then 'cmon people, give those tandems a fair chance. I dunno what I'm proposing excatly, I guess my main point is that the DZO is responsible for EVERYTHING. That just goes with the territory

Bullshit!

The tandem passenger is responsible for putting themselves in danger. Becuase that is exactly what they are doing when they agree to be a tandem passenger. They agree to accept the risk when they sign the waiver. They are responsible for any injuries to themselves because they chose to be a tandem passenger.

[freeflyit 0]

Edit: I wanted to ask why but then I saw you wrote stuff, I thought it was ur signature at first.

>>The tandem passenger is responsible for putting themselves in danger<<

Those people have no idea what to check for, what to expect aside from the fact that you will be their guide, someone who knows "everything" (from their point of view), etc..

I agree they take on a risk, but the TM is more responsible for their safety.

>>Becuase that is exactly what they are doing when they agree to be a tandem passenger<<

A TM has agreed to take on a job and is largely responsible for the tandem passengers survival. Yea, they do take a huge risk when they go into a dangerous environment they've never been before and that's why they pay over $200 for a single jump the first time around: for TM to guide them.

You're pretty quick to shut me down, but it just shows me you don't want any responsibility for their life and I can understand that, but want it or not it's there. And for there to be any type of "control", someone has to step up. I dunno, doesn't really seem like bullshit to me.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

Bullshit!

The tandem passenger is responsible for putting themselves in danger. Because that is exactly what they are doing when they agree to be a tandem passenger. They agree to accept the risk when they sign the waiver. They are responsible for any injuries to themselves because they chose to be a tandem passenger.

I seriously doubt the courts would agree with you on that.(I am not saying I dont agree with you, Just that is not how the Courts generally see it). You cannot waiver Gross Negligence in most US Courts (I have no Idea about Canada). A reasonable lawyer (OK.. I know there is no such thing) could argue that while his Client did accept the risks of Skydiving, He had a reasonable expectation of properly maintained gear. If that gear was not maintained to "Industry" Standards, they have a pretty good case.

Again, I do not agree with this but it is how things generally work whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant.

[tombuch 0]

Quote

That's exactly the kind of thing that gets things messed up. It's like having 2 employees working the same cash and should money go missing there is no way to know. I completely understand that TM are doing the best they can and it's not their "fault" but really, isn't it time for someone to step up and take the responsibility since this is a life-or-death sport and when you have a whole bunch of people pointing fingers at each other what good does it actually do? Personally I think it should be the man in charge (DZO). It's sad because in real life nobody gives a crap about these little things especially when you have like a million things to do at once and it would just be impractical to check everything every single time, but if that's what it takes to live then 'cmon people, give those tandems a fair chance. I dunno what I'm proposing excatly, I guess my main point is that the DZO is responsible for EVERYTHING. That just goes with the territory

Sure, the DZO is responsible for the overall operation, and for developing and supporting systems to achieve his goals. If the system we are discussing is used, the rigger is responsible for maintaining the accuracy of the repack list posted in the equipment storage shed. Each instructor is responsible for checking the list before removing a rig, and then confirming it is in date and properly listed on the wall chart. If an error is found at that point, it offers a feedback loop to the rigger maintaining the rig. Finally, each student skydiver (AFF, IAF, SL, IAD) is responsible for checking his own rig as part of the pre-jump pin check, and that backs up everything else.

In the USA, a failure could be attributed to any of the players, and they could all face FAA administrative action. For more information about who is legally responsible in the United States, see my Article 13 "FAA Regulations Applied" at http://theblueskyranch.com/STA.php.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[Canuck 0]

Quote

You can start being one of the ones that do our job, or you can continue to wallow in the quagmire of mediocrity – it is up to you…
-

Back the fuck up. You don't know shit about how I work with students. I disagree that checking the reserve data card is part of a pin check, anymore than opening the Cypres to make sure the batteries are in date, or ensuring that a rig complies to any issued service bulletins, or that a fabric of the reserve will pass or pull test, or that the lines on the main canopy aren't frayed, etc. etc. etc. There's no end to things we could check, but then we would never actually get in the plane. I do my job, and let the DZO and resident rigger do theirs.

Canuck

[AFFI 0]

Quote

I disagree that checking the reserve data card is part of a pin check

Checking the reserve repack data card is one of the PRIMARY steps in a pre-flight gear check.

Mykel AFF-I10
Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat…

[bozo 0]

Quote

Quote

I disagree that checking the reserve data card is part of a pin check

Checking the reserve repack data card is one of the PRIMARY steps in a pre-flight gear check.

Youre just splitting hairs. Before the start of the jumpday for student gear. Before the first jump for experienced....but on every jump thruout the day....you gotta be shitting me.

bozo
Pain is fleeting. Glory lasts forever. Chicks dig scars.

[chrismgtis 0]

If you're jumping student gear, you should check the card on the gear you're jumping because you don't when it was last repacked or is due.

If it's your own rig, you should know when it was last repacked and is due, therefore saying you should check the card is a little ridiculous, even for the first jump of the day on your rig.

Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033
Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

[DougH 270]

Quote

If you're jumping student gear, you should check the card on the gear you're jumping because you don't when it was last repacked or is due.

Yes this is true, I did so myself when I was in AFF (not every time since I jumped the same gear and the repack date didn't change).

But how exactly does this apply to a thread about a tandem student??!!

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

[grimmie 186]

Kat isn't the first nor the last skydiver to sue someone in the skydive world.
It has happened after jump plane crashes, student injuries and fatalities and yes, even a Canadian team member sued his team mate after a collision, and was awarded a hefty sum.
There could probably be an entire section dedicated to who has sought legal action against whom in this sport.

[AFFI 0]

Quote

But how exactly does this apply to a thread about a tandem student??!!

The thread is about litigation from a student to a skydiving training facility. And a valid question was raised by the following question –

Quote

Here is the question that this incident raises for me. How many instructors out there routinely (as in every time you gear your students up) check that the reserve is in date? I don't do tandems, but I do AFF and IAD, and I have never once looked at the data cards during gear up. If there is an incident, and the reserve is out of date, who is at fault - the instructor or the DZ who supplies/maintains the student gear?

To which an equally valid point/reply about through training was that -

Quote

Teaching students how to do a through gear check is part of our job duties. Checking the reserve repack data card is one of the PRIMARY steps in a pre-flight gear check.

And a very experienced skydiver responded –

Quote

Youre just splitting hairs. Before the start of the jumpday for student gear. Before the first jump for experienced....but on every jump thruout the day....you gotta be shitting me.

The salient points being twofold:

A) We are teaching skydiving students how to make freefall parachute jumps utilizing skydiving gear, and it is incumbent upon solo freefall instructors to teach each student every aspect of making each jump safely as is defined by the guidelines set forth by our respective governing bodies (in my case, the FAA and the USPA).

B) In a courtroom, if we are overlooking even a single aspect of that training, then we are being negligent, and an attorney will delve into every infinitesimal nook and cranny so to speak, so we need to instruct as if we are being scrutinized on the witness stand in a court of law by a litigation expert.

Perhaps I used stronger language than is necessary to establish my point thus creating an atmosphere of contempt, for that I apologize to any offended parties.
But the fact remains that checking the reserve data repack card is part of the fundamental knowledge that we are supposed to be teaching our students. If we use a rig on a jump and then use that same piece of gear on a subsequent jump with another student we must teach that individual the importance of doing a through gear check which includes an assurance that the reserve is in date. It is not about our (instructors) knowing it is in date, it is about teaching every student the important aspects of safely making a freefall parachute jump.

Therefore, as far as a jury is concerned, if we overlook something, then we are being negligent in our duties as skydiving instructors.

I understand in the real world that we are often times quite busy, sometimes overloaded and we are only human and sometimes overlook things, but that does not negate the fact that we have an obligation when we take on the responsibilities (which are immense) as skydiving instructors.

That is all…
-

Mykel AFF-I10
Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat…

[bozo 0]

[reply

I understand in the real world that we are often times quite busy, sometimes overloaded and we are only human and sometimes overlook things, but that does not negate the fact that we have an obligation when we take on the responsibilities (which are immense) as skydiving instructors.

That is all…
-

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Bullshit!

The tandem passenger is responsible for putting themselves in danger. Becuase that is exactly what they are doing when they agree to be a tandem passenger. They agree to accept the risk when they sign the waiver. They are responsible for any injuries to themselves because they chose to be a tandem passenger.

You must understand that there is a limit to how much you can waiver off your liability.

Waiver doesnt mean that a DZ can do anything what so ever without liability.

DZ´s can make you sign what they want. Different thing is what will be binding and what not..


Im not taking sides on this incident (since I dont know the facts), but I would like to state that I find it a little biassed that no skydiver here has really admitted that there are situtations where suing a DZ might be reasonable.

[IanHarrop 42]

Quote

Im not taking sides on this incident (since I dont know the facts), but I would like to state that I find it a little biassed that no skydiver here has really admitted that there are situtations where suing a DZ might be reasonable.

I think in particular to this situation, and this DZ, suing is not reasonable and that may be why it has not been stated here.

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Quote

Im not taking sides on this incident (since I dont know the facts), but I would like to state that I find it a little biassed that no skydiver here has really admitted that there are situtations where suing a DZ might be reasonable.

I think in particular to this situation, and this DZ, suing is not reasonable and that may be why it has not been stated here.

I remember reading a LOT of "skydivers dont sue" mentality even on this paricular thread.

This mentality sure doesnt sound like you would admit there are situations where suing is reasonable.

[IanHarrop 42]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Im not taking sides on this incident (since I dont know the facts), but I would like to state that I find it a little biassed that no skydiver here has really admitted that there are situtations where suing a DZ might be reasonable.

I think in particular to this situation, and this DZ, suing is not reasonable and that may be why it has not been stated here.

I remember reading a LOT of "skydivers dont sue" mentality even on this paricular thread.

This mentality sure doesnt sound like you would admit there are situations where suing is reasonable.

Be careful making generalizations and assumptions. You don't know me or what I will admit to based difference circumstances.

I spoke specifically and said "I think in particular to this situation, and this DZ, suing is not reasonable and that may be why it has not been stated here."

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Im not taking sides on this incident (since I dont know the facts), but I would like to state that I find it a little biassed that no skydiver here has really admitted that there are situtations where suing a DZ might be reasonable.

I think in particular to this situation, and this DZ, suing is not reasonable and that may be why it has not been stated here.

I remember reading a LOT of "skydivers dont sue" mentality even on this paricular thread.

This mentality sure doesnt sound like you would admit there are situations where suing is reasonable.

Be careful making generalizations and assumptions. You don't know me or what I will admit to based difference circumstances.

I spoke specifically and said "I think in particular to this situation, and this DZ, suing is not reasonable and that may be why it has not been stated here."

Im sorry.. Instead of saying you I should have said most people


EDIT :
And to make my self more clear : this is the mentality I was talking about... Didnt mean to talk to you directly..

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

>Skydivers don't sue.

Kat Folger did; she was a skydiver by anyone's definition.

Not by mine, nor many I've talked to.

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

[diablopilot 2]

Skydivers don't sue. They take personal responsibility for their safety, and make choices accordingly.

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

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Skydivers don't sue. They take personal responsibility for their safety, and make choices accordingly.

What you should understand there are situations where suing is reasonable.

Think about jump pilot being heavily toxicated killing many people. I could come up with a lot of examples, but Im sure you could too, so I dont need to bother.

At the point where another one does something that is really wrong it doesnt matter if it happens while we are doing something we love and have our small little community. It will still be wrong...

Totally another question is, where to draw the line of what is at your own risk and what is negligence...

Waiver is a waiver, not a licence to kill and do what ever.. (im sorry if I had to really take my example to the extreme to get my point understood)

[billvon 3,006]

>Not by mine . . .

Then what is your definition?

[diablopilot 2]

Why would you get on a jump plane with a pilot who was intoxicated?

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

[DougH 270]

If it was an otter or a casa and you were sitting down by the door how would you know?

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

[billvon 3,006]

> Why would you get on a jump plane with a pilot who was intoxicated?

Because it's often hard to tell? I rarely see the pilot of our Otters unless he turns around to ask something, or I'm sitting up front. And unless you're Billy Richards, the beer usually isn't sitting right there.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

If it was an otter or a casa and you were sitting down by the door how would you know?

I know the pilots I ride with.

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