Training thoughts

[safeone 0]

Here is a scenario;

Your DZ has an instructor that regularly teaches new and low number jumpers. This instructor is competent, accurate, and very good with their students. Now, this instructor ...

1: they are under investigation or convicted of an assault or other injurious crime (involuntary or voluntary manslaughter or worse). Having possibly served time for these. and/or

2: they are under investigation or convicted on drug charges; using, trafficking, distributing. Having possibly served time for these. and/or

3: this instructor is not accurate with their information and teachings, providing their students with bad information. Having students do poorly, on the verge of or even unsafe because of poor instruction when sent to other instructors.


Any or all of these situations exist. The DZ continues to employ the instructor. The club or DZO('s) see no problem having this person around. As an instructor in the same organization (USPA), or fellow instructor at the same DZ what are your thoughts, as a student what are your thoughts when you learn of these things?
Now what if a student is injured or killed in a manner related to this instructor. What are the DZ's liabilities, what are your liabilities as a fellow instructor, or just as an experienced jumper at the DZ. In the course of the injury/fatality investigation these things about the instructors past are revealed. Questions are brought up...was it possibly intentional harm (related to scenario 1) was the instructor impaired in some way (scenario 2) is the instructor capable of safely instructing? Is the DZ responsible because they employed the person, as a fellow instructor are you responsible for not reporting the situation, as an experienced jumper are you responsible for not reporting the situation to your S&TA?

It can probably be assumed that this situation('s) has occurred before somewhere, ( I have heard stories for 12 years from all around the country). What happened and how was it handled?



What are your thoughts on the above questions?

[lawrocket 3]

Not an instructor, but here's my sense of it.

There are several different variables here:

Quote

Now what if a student is injured or killed in a manner related to this instructor.

It depends on what you mean here. If the instructor killed this student, as in murdered the student, then the DZ would likely be in a heap of civil liability. Typically, the DZO would have a duty to make the place safe from foreseeable risks. In the event of the risks of skydiving, these are covered by the waiver.

Still, a murder (I'm thinking of a situation where the instructor kills someone in a non-skydiving related way) is not something that is waivable in most places. Negligence can be waived, i.e., if the student biffed a landing after instructor's information.

But a murder wouldn't be waived. The DZO should know the past of this instructor, and is chargeable with "constructive knowledge." In other words, this is knowable, and he should know it. The DZO would then be charged with taking steps to protect those on his property (legally, "invitees" ) from the knowabel risk. The murderer kills, the DZO faces some trouble. This trouble would almost certainly not be criminal, but civil in nature.

In another situation, where the instructor has past drug convictions, it's not so important. If, however, the instructor was high, and ended killing the student because of her reckless behaviour, this may move it beyond that which a waiver will cover. There is still a duty to protect from known or foreseeable risks. Though the DZ might ultimately win the lawsuit on the waiver, it will be costly. This problem should be remediated.

In most of these circumstances, the DZO will be liable for all torts not waived under the doctrine of respondeat superior. In short, the higher man answers for the lower's torts. Unless it can be shown that the instructor was acting outside the course and scope of employment, the DZO will face liability for those things not waived, since the employee was acting for the employer's benefit.

Regarding duties, I can't answer that. Morally and ethically I would say that anyone has a duty to report unsafe persons or conduct at a DZ. Regulations may state this duty more directly.

I hope that sheds some light on it...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,991]

>1: they are under investigation or convicted of an assault or other
> injurious crime (involuntary or voluntary manslaughter or worse).
> Having possibly served time for these. and/or

Under investigation: means little
Convicted of a serious crime: Ensure the DZO knows. If it bothers you, quit.

>2: they are under investigation or convicted on drug charges; using,
> trafficking, distributing. Having possibly served time for these.

Under investigation: means little
Convicted of serious drug charges: Ensure the DZO knows. If it bothers you, quit.

>3: this instructor is not accurate with their information and teachings,
> providing their students with bad information. Having students do
> poorly, on the verge of or even unsafe because of poor instruction
> when sent to other instructors.

If you have seen this YOURSELF, let the DZO or CI know. If he continues to do this and it bothers you, quit.

[pds 0]

first of all, i need to tell safeone that his scenario contradicts itself. sounds like one of two things; 1st and most convincing is that it is a blatant troll; 2nd is that this person has a specific target in mind and is attempting to gather info.

i have learned that this particular approach is futile and generates far more noise than constructive information.

that said, i got a bone to pick with bill..... for a second, lets imagine that we can take the scenario as presented.

'quitting', hmm. to walk away from a situation as described is to condone it. inaction can be a morally contemptable event.

'tell the dzo and if it bothers you, quit' is just a chickenshit response and you know it.

it is not our job to inform a dzo that he/sje is employing an instructor who is either a murderer, trafficker or falls short in instructional ability. it is fundamentally the employer's responsibility to exercise due diligence in screening employees and to be aware of criminal and civil judgements againts a potential employee.

i would hope that a dzo would place student safety above all and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. students to not KNOW those that instruct them, therefore it is not within thier ability to discern whether or not this instructor's colored past affects thier instructional abilities.

but the most salient issue at hand is that it has been demonstrated that certain DZO's are more interested in the bottom line than the safety of thier students/jumpers. denying this is futile. 'tell the dzo and quit if you don't like it' doesn't get it in my book.

i have yet to find the appropriate avenue for airing complaints of this nature, but this isn't it, safeone.

rant over.

namaste, motherfucker.

[billvon 2,991]

>'quitting', hmm. to walk away from a situation as described is to
>condone it. inaction can be a morally contemptable event.

I disagree with what Michael Hawkes does in Vegas. I suppose I am morally contemptible for not doing more, but my reaction to my feelings about him is to not jump there or work there.

>'tell the dzo and if it bothers you, quit' is just a chickenshit response
>and you know it.

In the end, you can do nothing more. If everyone follows your lead the DZ will be unable to put students up - and the problem is solved. If the problem is truly egregious, and unscrupulous people work for him, there's nothing you can really do. DZ's don't have to belong to USPA, and as long as they break no laws (and there are few true laws on skydiving) you have no legal recourse. I suppose you could put an ad in the paper to warn jumpers away, but if you go on his property to do this he could have you arrested.

Probably the most effective thing to do in an area with a lot of skydivers (and DZ's) is to just quit and spread the word. Quitting is the more significant response; actions speak louder than words.

>it is not our job to inform a dzo that he/sje is employing an instructor
> who is either a murderer, trafficker or falls short in instructional
> ability. it is fundamentally the employer's responsibility to exercise
> due diligence in screening employees and to be aware of criminal
> and civil judgements againts a potential employee.

Perhaps, but in reality few DZO's actually do this.

>i would hope that a dzo would place student safety above all and
>avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

A great many DZO's do not. Often, they let the chief instructor run the school, relying on him to make such decisions. CI's generally put student safety pretty high on the list of priorities, but not going out of business is generally higher on the list of priorities.

"Appearance of impropriety?" Skydivers, even instructors, aren't much for appearances.

>but the most salient issue at hand is that it has been demonstrated
> that certain DZO's are more interested in the bottom line than the
> safety of thier students/jumpers. denying this is futile.

I would never deny it! It's 100% true. If it weren't true, all DZO's would ban hook turns, tiny canopies, head down, big ways etc and require AAD's and RSL's. That's not generally a good business move so they don't do it. They put other things (like their business, their desire to not over-regulate, and their desire to do cool stuff) over skydiver safety.

>'tell the dzo and quit if you don't like it' doesn't get it in my book.

If you find a better solution let me know.

[Jib 0]

Quote

first of all, i need to tell safeone that his scenario contradicts itself. sounds like one of two things; 1st and most convincing is that it is a blatant troll; 2nd is that this person has a specific target in mind and is attempting to gather info.

or it smells like a fishing expedition by someone trying to beat a release and sue

injured or killed
DZ's liabilities
your liabilities
In the course of the injury/fatality investigation
intentional harm
capable of safely instructing
Is the DZ responsible because they employed
are you responsible for not reporting
What happened and how was it handled?

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[pds 0]

you got it in there. that's a good thing.

i dont have an answer that wont get you censured, ostracised or physically attacked. this is something that is on my daily short list and i _am_ working on some things but most times it feels like i am flying blind. rest assured you will be amongst the first to know.

namaste, motherfucker.

[pds 0]

Quote

or it smells like a fishing expedition by someone trying to beat a release and sue

likely not. information gathered here would arguably be less than useless as evidence.

waivers are not 'beaten' but they are, when appropriate to do so, set aside. a person cannot sign away right of redress to criminal acts. certain flavors of negligence are criminal. and then there are civil actions in which it is entirely up to the jury to decide whether there was addressable wrongdoing regardless of any waiver.

in common sense terms, the waiver says 'we gonna do our best, but shit happens. you sure you wanna jump?'. if it can be demonstrated that a responsible party did not 'do they best' there are grounds for a lawsuit.

the fee-shifting clause of all waivers is most commonly set aside at the forefront. fee shifting provisions and statutes were designed to protect corporations from frivolous litigation by other corporations. if a party suing a dz gets stuck with dz's legal fees, they need a new lawyer.

namaste, motherfucker.