Leaving the USPA

[wildblue 7]

Eh... it really has no teeth to it at all.

Quote

It's the only regulation there is. This is a good thing.

Ah... now I see... so we can use the program to keep the FAA or whoever off our backs. It's simply there to say "we have a program in place" - even though it's not really effective, the people outside of the sport don't know that. Just a way to placate the letter groups. It's even more of a waste of money than I thought.

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Eh... it really has no teeth to it at all.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It's the only regulation there is. This is a good thing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah... now I see... so we can use the program to keep the FAA or whoever off our backs. It's simply there to say "we have a program in place" - even though it's not really effective, the people outside of the sport don't know that. Just a way to placate the letter groups. It's even more of a waste of money than I thought.

You are exactly correct. I had this discussion w/ a RD recently and that is exactly what I got out of the conversation. USPA presented the FAA w/ the GM program and the SIM's to keep us skydiving. Telling the FAA, we will be "self-regulating". Wy back, I guess. But he admitted USPA does not regulate skydiving, but tells the FAA they do. That was his argument for keeping the GM program, that and DZO's don't have the time to make their own organization for DZ's.

Hook

[PhreeZone 20]

> DZO's don't have the time to make their own organization for DZ's.

The owners of Aerohio have started one a few years ago but only have like 20 members right now...

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Hooknswoop 19]

Right, my point was, why would they have to spend more time than they do now. The organization would do all that. They fill out the paper-work, send in the check and they are done for the year, same as now. So I wasn't buying that excuse either.

Hook

[livendive 8]

Quote

It's more then a title, it's an agreement to obey a certain set of rules. The agreement has some 'teeth', too.

What teeth?

Quote

It's the only regulation there is. This is a good thing. I'd like to keep it this way. Large numbers of DZ's not agreeing to the rules means there are no rules. That's bad.

It's not the only regulation there is. Haven't you seen individual jumpers be kicked out of USPA for not following the BSRs? DZ's don't break BSRs, jumpers/instructors do.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billbooth 10]

While you might not think taking a 6 year old on a tandem jump is unsafe, please look at the bigger picture. In order for my company, or any other company, to continue to improve the safety of our sport, we must be allowed to exist. Waivers signed by parents for their children are worthless...and one lawsuit that wipes out Relative Workshop, PD, and USPA will do a lot to decrease safety. Think of what will happen if you allow the legal system to put all of our sports innovators out of business. No more technical support or spare parts for thousands of rigs and canopies... and no more R&D to bring you safer products in the future...and less competition will mean higher prices for you and everyone else. And don't forget...no more USPA means little or no representation in Washington. And without that representation, what do you think the new "wartime" TSA is going to do to your "right" to jump? So while it may not be physically dangerous to take up kids, the rewards simply don't justify the risks. The only reason the above companies are still in business, is that in every tandem incident to date, a LEGAL WAIVER was signed.

That said, I am a practical person. I know that people who make their living in this sport are going to take up their kids on jumps. That's why there is a waiver provision regarding the age limit. What I worry about is large scale, public for profit tandem operations, where lawsuit are much more likely to happen.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

That said, I am a practical person. I know that people who make their living in this sport are going to take up their kids on jumps. That's why there is a waiver provision regarding the age limit. What I worry about is large scale, public for profit tandem operations, where lawsuit are much more likely to happen.

Well that's great, but the age BSR is non-waiverable, and is the source of at least 3 major dropzones being kicked out of the GM program.

This is a bad thing.

I believe it was your lawyers that encouraged the USPA from loosening the age limit BSR. Your age waiver is meaningless if the USPA doesn't have one as well.

This is also a bad thing.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Well that's great, but the age BSR is non-waiverable, and is the source of at least 3 major dropzones being kicked out of the GM program.

Actually, the tandem age limit and the 18-year-old age limit for single-harness jumps are both waiverable by the full board. The 16-year-old limit for single-harness jumps is the only one that's not waiverable.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Skitzo 0]

Allright.........Lets not forget what started this conversation, which was why Rusty chose to leave the USPA, with very good reason, I respect his decision..... and even if I didn't know him..., after reading his commentary, would still respect his decision.

I began jumping at CPC. a wonderful and SAFETY conscious DZ. When I started jumping they were not a "USPA DZ," Abbrs. that meant NOTHING to me at the time. Last I heard they are USPA now because they have a jumpmaster for static lines, which was why they weren't in the past. I've been to several DZ's since, and listened to the whole USPA as opposed to Non-USPA conversations while I hold my tongue, because..., "What do I l know?, I've only got a couple hundred jumps...and wish I'd stood up for them because damnit,...they were the most loving, helpful,safety conscious & FUN people you would ever want to know. I've since moved to FL., have visited 5 different DZ's and now jump at SDA,...what do ya know....another Non USPA DZ., and yet, another very SAFETY conscious DZ. I've been questioned less from the USPA DZ's than the non-USPA DZ's, What's Up With That!

The only point I wish to make here is....If a DZ does not wish to undergo all the politics that USPA requires of them, it does NOT mean they are not a wonderful AND safe place to jump at!
~Kim

"How do you keep your feet on the ground when you know you were born to fly?"

[novacaine 0]

Can someone help me understand something here. If the Department of Motor Vehicular allows people of 16 y/o have drivers license, why doesn't the USPA allow then young people to skydive? Last time I checked car accidents where one of the largest causes of death for people ages 16-25. It just doesn't make any sense to me. It seems to be a double standard. By placing an age limit due to "BSR" does this mean that USPA doesn't trust the DMV by allowing 16 y/o to drive?

[quatorze 1]

Quote

But you do have to be 18 to sign a legally binding contract (waiver).

The thing about that, is that in some states, South Carolina for instance, waivers aren't even worth the paper that they are printed on, regardless of the age of the signee, any half competent attorney can rip one to shreds in court.

I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle

[weid14 0]

Quote

Quote

But you do have to be 18 to sign a legally binding contract (waiver).

The thing about that, is that in some states, South Carolina for instance, waivers aren't even worth the paper that they are printed on, regardless of the age of the signee, any half competent attorney can rip one to sheds in court.

but there are some states (california) where the waiver has stood up in court

[quatorze 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But you do have to be 18 to sign a legally binding contract (waiver).

The thing about that, is that in some states, South Carolina for instance, waivers aren't even worth the paper that they are printed on, regardless of the age of the signee, any half competent attorney can rip one to shreds in court.

but there are some states (california) where the waiver has stood up in court

very true, I just have a hard time with the waiver arguement being used as the be all and the end all statement. The waiver has a lot of value in some locales and is only good for kindling in others. I have seen/heard the arguement made so many times in the past few weeks concering Group members and the BSR's that use the waiver as evidence. The way I see it, the waiver issue has too many conflicting points to be used effectively one way or another. Just my humble opinion though.

I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle

[AggieDave 6]

Ok, this is annoying me...

Repeat after me, it is NOT a waiver, it is a release of liability. It is not possible or legal to wave your rights, you can however sign a contract that states you release the binding party of liability.

Another point, with that release of liability, it will stand up in court, it has before across the country and it will continue to. Ask the uniinsured RWS about it.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[billbooth 10]

Andy;

If you want to get mad at someone, why not direct your anger where it will do some good...at the legislators who pass personal injury laws, and at the lawyers who get rich from them. The civil law system in the US is quite simply broken, and it's hurting everyone of us, every day. (For instance)... If we all don't get together and fix it soon, "half" the doctors in this country will be out of business.

I do have a simple solution to the problem though. If all the doctors, and especially dentists, got together and refused to treat legislators and lawyers, the problem would soon go away. All the lawyers would be in too much pain to sue anybody anymore, and we'd all be better off. At that point, I wouldn't have any objection to kids jumping.

Trouble is, doctors, unlike personal injury lawyers, have ehtics.

[kallend 2,105]

Quote

Can someone help me understand something here. If the Department of Motor Vehicular allows people of 16 y/o have drivers license, why doesn't the USPA allow then young people to skydive? Last time I checked car accidents where one of the largest causes of death for people ages 16-25. It just doesn't make any sense to me. It seems to be a double standard. By placing an age limit due to "BSR" does this mean that USPA doesn't trust the DMV by allowing 16 y/o to drive?

A parent can release liability on behalf of a minor for things deemed necessary (such as medical treatment, or, apparently, getting a driver's license). Skydiving is not generally considered necessary.

[diverdriver 6]

Last time I checked, skydiving was commiting suicide if you didn't do something to change the outcome (deploy). Driving a car is not inherently commiting suicide even though there are risks involved.

Chris

[yardhippie 0]

Quote

It's more then a title, it's an agreement to obey a certain set of rules. The agreement has some 'teeth', too.

It's the only regulation there is. This is a good thing. I'd like to keep it this way. Large numbers of DZ's not agreeing to the rules means there are no rules. That's bad.

_Am

Yes, and the license the DMV gives a person, binds them to an agreement not to break traffic laws. Yet it happens constantly and everybody at least knows that person who does it. Until, skydivers as a group, speak up when they see those violations, and urge the leaders of the USPA to make changes so that we can better CONVINCE those DZs and skydivers who are not 'safe' we are looking out for their best interests.

I envision a set of rules that doesnt expel membership b/c of violations, but keeps the USPA working WITH those people. If you cut someone off, chances are they will become unwilling to listen to any outside influence.

Whatever the outcome, I just want to continue to go to fun, and safe DZs and meet all the great people out there.

Goddam dirty hippies piss me off! ~GFD
"What do I get for closing your rig?" ~ me
"Anything you want." ~ female skydiver
Mohoso Rodriguez #865

[quatorze 1]

Quote

Ok, this is annoying me...

Repeat after me, it is NOT a waiver, it is a release of liability. It is not possible or legal to wave your rights, you can however sign a contract that states you release the binding party of liability.

Another point, with that release of liability, it will stand up in court, it has before across the country and it will continue to. Ask the uniinsured RWS about it.

Dude, that may be the case in your locale, I am going on what a skydiving friend of mine who happens to be an attorney enlightened us to last fall, and was agreed to/supported by two or three others who practice law in this state, there is a term that I refuse to use in a public forum for what an attorney needs to say to sway the courts ruling in these decisions. But as far as I have heard, every DZO I have come in contact with fears this phrase like the plague. I guess that geographical differences have a stonger signifigance then we realize. Yet again, why I think that this is a tired peice of evidence and should be left out of all discusions concerning BSR's and Group membership.

I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle

[sar911 0]

Quote

Last time I checked, skydiving was commiting suicide if you didn't do something to change the outcome (deploy). Driving a car is not inherently commiting suicide even though there are risks involved.

Oh, will then try driving that car without using the brakes to change the outcome

[billvon 3,063]

>Driving a car is not inherently commiting suicide even though there
> are risks involved.

Driving a car on a highway is committing suicide unless you use the brakes to stop. Plus you have to steer. It's just more familiar and thus less scary.

[AggieDave 6]

All I know is that RWS' release of liability that is used in conjunction with what the TM signs when he gets Vector/Sigma Tandem rated has pulled thier ass out of a bind in court or on the way to court more then once.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[diverdriver 6]

Um, I don't remember the last time I drove my car at 120 miles per hour. There ARE times where you could not use the brakes and still survive the impact. The car may not. I doubt there are any impacts that you can survive in skydiving without an act of God.

Chris

[kallend 2,105]

Quote

Um, I don't remember the last time I drove my car at 120 miles per hour. There ARE times where you could not use the brakes and still survive the impact. The car may not. I doubt there are any impacts that you can survive in skydiving without an act of God.

Chris

You can die in a 15mph collision. 120mph not needed.

[billvon 3,063]

>Um, I don't remember the last time I drove my car at 120 miles per
> hour.

You can die easily at 30 mph. A 30mph head-on crash is something like 50% fatal even with all the modern gadgets.

>There ARE times where you could not use the brakes and still
> survive the impact.

Especially with seatbelts and airbags. And there are times you can not pull and still survive, especially with an AAD.