Generic/Specific Tandem Waiver

[BIGUN 1,317]

This may be a question for greater powers that be; but I've often wondered if it's not possible to pull all the tandem waiver forms from all the manufacturers into one waiver for the students that holds all Tandem manufacturers harmless.

I work in an area where the TI's bring their own rigs and when we have a bunch of students, they have to fill out all three (since we're not sure which TI will get which student). Since all three basically say the same thing except for the specific manufacturer is it not possible to roll everything up into one which could be warehoused on the USPA website. If other manufacturers pop up, the USPA could add them or drop the one's that stop manufacturing.

If this idea gets totally shot down and your DZ has the same issue of more than one tandem manufacturer - perhaps you could share with me if you have come across a more efficient process.

Thanks,

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

[tkhayes 348]

create your own waiver and use it, exclude the manufacturers int he paragraphs that list the gear supplies, manufacturers etc, and list trhem specifically.

I am not sure that there is any legal requirement to use the tandem manufacturer's waiver anway. Half the waivers out there still talk about tandem being an experimental activity, which is has not been since 2001,

so the tandem waiver from them is probably not even relevant anymore.

[tombuch 0]

Quote

create your own waiver and use it, exclude the manufacturers int he paragraphs that list the gear supplies, manufacturers etc, and list trhem specifically.

I am not sure that there is any legal requirement to use the tandem manufacturer's waiver anway.

Note that the Relative Workshop has a new waiver that eliminates the mention of "experimental status." Also note that the end user agreement every RWS tandem owner has signed, requires that the owner use the provided waiver for every tandem (see section 8).

For a copy of the user agreement or waiver, see http://relativeworkshop.com/tan_waivereua.html

Each manufacturer has different waiver requirements. If you or the rig owner have a contract with the manufacturer, you must honor that contract.

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

[BIGUN 1,317]

Quote

Each manufacturer has different waiver requirements. If you or the rig owner have a contract with the manufacturer, you must honor that contract.

Understood and I do. Just thinking about a more efficient process than an additional three manufacturer waivers for the students to sign.

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

[tombuch 0]

Quote

Quote

Each manufacturer has different waiver requirements. If you or the rig owner have a contract with the manufacturer, you must honor that contract.

Understood and I do. Just thinking about a more efficient process than an additional three manufacturer waivers for the students to sign.

Yup. Your post was clear on that point. TK suggested blowing off the manufacturer waivers, so I was replying to his suggestion.

It might be possible for all the manufacturers to get together and design a single waiver with a 'fill in the blank' for the name of the equipment manufacturer/supplier, but I suspect they would not take kindly to that idea.

Imagine for a moment that you are the Uninsured Relative Workshop Inc., and Skydive Podunk used a generic waiver, but listed your corporate name as "RWS" without clarification. That might expose the company to litigation because the correct corporate identity wasn't listed. It would be tough for each manufacturer to police that level of waiver application at every drop zone.

Also consider that at least the Relative Workshop video waiver makes it clear that the jumper has other options that do not include signing the waiver (going to a different DZ, not making a tandem first jump). If all manufacturers were party to the same waiver, a student could claim he had no other options and was compelled to sign it.

There are other problems too. I'm not a lawyer, but my hunch is that we are stuck with the current system.

Back in the day my DZ used Strong and Vector rigs (about 7 Vectors and 3 Strong, as I recall). Some of us were trained on each, and a few of us were trained on both. Most of the rigs were Vectors, so the default waiver for everybody was the Vector form. As students were being registered we were able to identify at least a few that would be jumping with Strong instructors, and they were given the Strong waiver. When the students met their instructors they handed the instructor the signed waiver, and the instructor was responsible for confirming it was correctly filled out, and for the correct rig. That system requires that instructors actually meet with and teach their own students to at least some degree, and it makes it tough for back-to-backs. Umm, maybe that's not a downside.

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

[tkhayes 348]

Actually my suggestion is effectively, that you 'blow' off' the manufacturers. We do not have specific waivers when students jump regular gear, and I do not feel that we need them specifically for tandem.

Of course the manufacturers want you to do that for them, it covers THEIR ass, but does nothing for you. (and especialy nothing for your students, which was the original problem in the thread)

So add them to the existing waiver and forget about it.

Will they pull your rating for it? I doubt it, but if they do, they why would you do business with a company like that anyway?

All they want to be is covered. Tandem is now fully legal within the FAA rules and very little can be legally controlled by the manufacturers anymore.

When it was experiemental, THEY owned the program, and they effectively ran it and were responsible for it, so of course, I agree with the waiver at that point. Now it is legal, and the laws define the gear, the ratings, and the instructors, etc.

TK

[billbooth 10]

Relative Workshop's position has been the same from the start...No Waiver...No Waiver Video...NO JUMP. While we may no longer be able to pull your rating (if it's a USPA rating), we can, and will, enforce the user agreement all purchasers of our tandem rigs must sign, and confiscate the tandem equipment. Anyone who says "Blow off waivers" has never been sued.

[tspillers 0]

Bill, correct me if I am wrong. It is my understanding that you can submit your own paperwork to RWS and, if it meet certain criteria, they may allow you to use said paperwork. We don't have a waiver (other than RWS's). We have an Assumption of Rish Agreement. Waivers are useless in Texas according to our attourneys. A contract or agreement is very useful.

Also, I have heard rumour that only the first portion of the video is required now. Is this true?

Todd

I am not totally useless, I can be used as a bad example.

[tkhayes 348]

I'd be interested in knowing how much RWS and other tandem manufacturers have been sued BEFORE vs. AFTER the Part 105 changes?

No one wants to get sued, of course, but I think sometimes you can go to ridiculous extremes to protect yourself, which was the initial point of this thread.

Have you been successful sued since the 2001 changes in the FARs? Did your waiver explicitley play a role in that?

It would be an interesting dicussion. We have lawsuits now from regular skydivers. They sue dropzones and gear manufacturers on a regular basis, yet you do not require the user of the regular gear to sign an 'user agreement allowing you to confiscate the gear' if they violate said agreement.

Is it really any different?

TK

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Have you been successful sued since the 2001 changes in the FARs? Did your waiver explicitley play a role in that?

That may not be the best thing to post and reply to on DZ.com. DZ.com has already been used as an information source for lawyers in skydiving lawsuits.

Quote

Is it really any different?

I would think that since someone is implicitly putting their life in someone else's hands, that it would make the difference. Sure we're all at risk getting in the airplane and jumping with others, on a tandem there's not much a shuffo student can do to overcome, even with substantial training.

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

[billbooth 10]

Yes, only the first part of the video is required. A lot of DZ's add their own video after that. The combination of the video and assumption of risk agreement has always stopped tandem lawsuits...and I'm sure that quite a few lawsuits never even happened because of the signed agreement. I personally don't want to find out what happens when someone goes in without one.

[AggieDave 6]

Would we also need to add the very end of the video as well? The blue screen with the RWS's info (phone number, address, etc) on it?

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