Negligence in skydiving or '' Just sign on the dotted line."

[Trae 1]

Negligence in Skydiving...or...’Just sign on the dotted line.’

I’m wondering if recent (and not so recent) hikes in instructor/TM insurance premiums are directly related to negligent acts by certain people in skydiving.
It appears that we are all forced to pay more due to the negligent acts of a few incompetent & uncaring people in positions of power and influence
eg some incompetent instructors and dodgy operators..

There’s a buzz around that says that the disclaimer most skydivers signed (usually before their first skydive) has NEVER been beaten in a court of law.

Recently I’ve found out this is a total crock....

Apparently the disclaimer has been beaten on multiple occasions due to negligent behaviour.
Apparently you can’t contract out of negligence.
Ie you are always owed a Duty of Care even as an experienced skydiver and most definitely as a student or novice skydiver.

From my little bit of research such topics are Taboo within skydiving in general especially if you try to talk to the perpetrators about their seemingly uncaring acts.
These perps roam our sport having committed their negligent acts usually against students or tandem passengers who know very little about our sport.
Acts of negligence by incompetent instructors /skydivers are certainly not uncommon in my experience. It’s surprising how often the good ol’ ‘blame the student’ reaction washes on an unenlightened unknowing public .

The insurance companies are not so easily fooled.

Eg Over time there have been a swath of incidents involving insufficient guidance for students while under canopy. These include such things as poor target control procedure or training and poor canopy selection recommendations.

Such things as too big or too small a canopy being used by students can result in incidents that the student has little control over. Eg small people under large parachutes in marginal or changeable conditions can often result in putting the student into situations way beyond their control.
When these incidents result in death or serious injury it is seriously questionable whether they have been the victim of a negligent act.

The perpetrators are often protected by a closing of ranks and often by other criminal means such as altering evidence or just simply lying under oath. Try and find out the truth about such incidents and you get to see the lengths that some skydivers will go to cover their tracks. Sometimes these people are even rewarded for beating the rap.

Life for a DZ goes on even after very serious incidents with many experienced skydivers being experts at deflecting the blame. Some even managing to fool themselves about the true nature of many incidents they have been a party to.

Facing the music over your own negligent acts is a tune I hope you never have to dance to.


For you other types still wandering in the skydiving twilight zone who haven’t heard the music yet perhaps you can spare a thought for the people your negligent acts have affected.
YOU may have forgotten but there are a lot of people out there who are still affected by your gross incompetence.

Thankfully such behaviour appears to belong to a distinct minority.

Take care and give it back as well.

[PhreeZone 20]

What insurance for instructors? I've never heard of a country that has insurance for instuctors...

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[riggerrob 643]

Drop a few thousand students, then come back and beek off like this.

[Hooknswoop 19]

In the U.S., USPA lowered the standards to be an AFFI to deal with the Instructor shortage. Quanity over quality. DZ's make their money by the jump, not by the quality of the Instruction. When things go wrong, the ranks close up. The video is hidden or destroyed and the student is told the camera didn't work. If anyone speaks up, they are ostracized from the DZ or even banned. It is a culture that is not going to change on its own, since the people that could change it are benefited by the status quo.
Jumpers will defend a DZ vehemently, even if the evidence shows otherwise. “Our DZ has great maintenance on the aircraft.” The engine was 2,000 hours past TBO.” “Um…….our DZ has great maintenance on the aircraft.” “He wasn’t skydiving with a BASE rig on.” For the perfect example, look at the Skyride thread and the people defending it. It is a cult mentality.

Students are uneducated in how skydiving works or what makes a good Instructor. Ask any student and they will tell you the Instructors on their DZ are the best anywhere. Of course, they haven’t been anywhere else to compare. Later on they may find out that their training maybe wasn’t what is should or could have been, but by then, it is too late and speaking up about it will only bring the ire of the DO and their fellow jumpers. So the cycle continues and nothing changes.

As long as DZO’s are allowed to do whatever they wish, governed by an FAA that doesn’t want to be bothered and a USPA that is a puppet organization, they will continue to do whatever they wish. Why wouldn’t they? Skydiving is corrupt. If you don’t see it yet, stick around and open your eyes. You will. Then you will be faced with a decision. Live with it as is or quit. Unfortunately changing things isn’t one of your choices.

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Drop a few thousand students,

I did.

Derek

[NickDG 23]

We've always known someone can't sign away their rights concerning gross negligence. If you have a student who decides to turn right after you told them to turn left, and they bust an ankle on landing the waiver protects you. If you hand a parachute to a student and it's full of yesterday's laundry the waiver protects the student. That's how it should be . . .

There's a bigger issue. You are coming out pretty strong, or at least making it sound like there are tons of incompetent instructors out there. I'll agree the ethics of some DZOs aren't up to snuff, and the overall brotherhood that existed between skydivers isn't what it once was, but most Instructors are still trying hard to do their jobs correctly.

Our students now spend their first hours in the sport with a tandem master, (which depending on the TM can be great, or it can be something else) before a quick-how-do-you-do in seven jumps from an AFF Instructor. And that's if they aren't forced into some hybrid program where they get even less attention from an AFF Instructor. Then it's off to coach land . . . Goodbye . . . Next . . . !

So it's the system that's breaking down. A way of doing things that never recovered from the old days when we were mostly clubs and not commercial centers. In those days the Instructors and the Area Safety Officer made the rules and they based it on what was hurting people, instead of a DZO, we had a Treasurer, and all he did was make sure the bills got paid and the beer fridge was full . . .

I'm seriously worried, however, about what looks like an increase in student injuries and fatalities lately. There was a time when student incidents were a horrible 40 percent of the total for a year, but the gear was complicated and harder to use in those days and everyone was going static line with round parachutes and it was dodgy on principal. The advent of modern gear and AFF instruction ushered in an era when you could truly say being a student was the safest you'd ever be in the sky. I hope we aren't losing that.

In defense of Instructors I must say low pay loses us some of the best of them. And I don't see any ratings in your profile and while your opinion is welcome sometimes experienced skydivers don't truly appreciate what Instructors face day in and day out. On the experienced side of the DZ you aren't doing so hot either. You're drilling yourselves into the ground under good parachutes left and right like it's a normal part of skydiving. And yes - Instructors are getting blamed for that too . . .

AFF worked fine in the 1980s, but in light of all the differences between then and now the whole program needs, not another – overhaul – but a rescue. Students should stay with their Instructors right up to the A license. In today's terms the amount of knowledge and "guidance" an AFF Instructor needs to impart to a student can’t be done in seven jumps. It's even worse for the best students, they ones who don't repeat levels, as they get even less instruction in the long run. The learning curve in a student from jump number one to jump number twenty-five is outrageous. And not to be squandered.

There are things you can tell a person at fifteen jumps they wouldn't comprehend or even remember at six jumps. We take this portion of the student's most formative days and break them up into a hodgepodge of different methods and personalities so you get things like, "Sorry Nick, I know you said that, but my last Instructor said this . . ." And when both ways are equally right it's Joe Student who's left scratching his head . . .

We sold tandem to the FAA, and the public, as a form of dual instruction, just like learning to fly an airplane. Well, let's really fulfill that promise and make our AFF Instructors more like Certified Flight Instructors, a person you stay with until you can manage to get up, (and in our case get out,) and get down without killing yourself or anyone else.

So here's the plan: We scrap everything about how it works today. All monies taken in by the student operation of any drop zone is kept in a cigar box in the Chief Instructor's kit bag. At the end of the day we open the cigar box and divvy it up. We set aside a set amount for gear upkeep and give every instructor who showed up that morning $500 right off the top. Then they are paid for whatever jumps or classes they did. Then the "master riggers" who pack student canopies get $75 per pack job and the staff that answer the school phones and do the paperwork gets a nice little bundle too. If there is any left over the DZO can have it. The new deal with DZOs is after we train up competent and safe skydivers they get to milk those same jumpers for whatever the altitude pop is for the next thirty years . . .

NickD BASE 194

[NickDG 23]

You said what I meant only shorter . . . Cool!

Nick

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

So here's the plan: We scrap everything about how it works today. All monies taken in by the student operation of any drop zone is kept in a cigar box in the Chief Instructor's kit bag.

LOL- that is good. As long as Instructors are either doing it for beer and pizza money to suppliment their day jobs and think they are "giving back to sport" by working for peanuts and there are Instructors that are happy if they can afford their ramon noodles for the next week and live on the DZ, the good Instructors will continue to not renew their ratings. Look at the cost to become an Instructor. Look at the time investment. Look at what a full-time Instructor gets for pay and benefits. The pay and benefits do not attract professional, high-speed Instructors. I have seen the profit margin of a DZ. L-39's and DC-9's aren't cheap.

Derek

[Trae 1]

'What insurance for instructors? I've never heard of a country that has insurance for instuctors"

Intructors in Australia pay a extra insurance levy due in part due to the number of negligence claims being made against sloppy operators.

in reply to riggerrob's "Drop a few thousand students, then come back and beek off like this."
Bit off topic ,,, your beef looks the old 'avoid the issue' and shoot the messenger tactic.
I don't see this as a beef or whinge as such but more an attempt to discuss what I see as a serious issue facing anyone who has their head out of the sand & gives a sheet about our sport and its future out of the negligence courts.
in reply to Hooknswoop'I wonder how many incidents have been avoided because DZ.com exists? '

Even one would be enough ???
Talk here is pretty cheap but its a good place to get a feel for the 'enemies of excellence'.
Gotta start somewhere..discussing a potential problem and/or the perpetrators can be a starting point. .
Thing is as a lifestyle skydiving only really delivers when the spirit level is high. When people are getting hurt and you can't rectify obvious discrepancies (eg novices on HP canopies) the spirit level has plunged to the point where caring individuals don't want to be associated with the irresponsible behaviour.

in reply to NickDG's "So here's the plan: We scrap everything about how it works today. .......gear upkeep and give every instructor who showed up that morning $500 right off the top. Then they are paid for whatever jumps or classes they did. Then the "master riggers" .........if there is any left over the DZO can have it. The new deal with DZOs is after we train up competent and safe skydivers they get to milk those same jumpers for whatever the altitude pop is for the next thirty years . . . "

This doesn't sound so bad..bit like a club would have operated., .By sharin the wealth a bit more equitably perhaps more skilled and competent instructors would feel like doing the job.

This could involve perhaps a % investment or interest in any club/company run along these lines.
The required skill levels would no doubt be higher than what appears a bit common at the moment. I have heard of some operations that DO pay a bit better.
Hopefully something similar will make financial sense in the long run due to avoiding court cases for 'cost cutting' negligence. Most skydivers don't / can't tune in to the negligence cases and a lot of these cases get settled out of court and out of the general skydiving head space.

One place I worked at for a while was continually having to retrain skydivers who appeared from a neighbouring DZ as they didn't have some of the basic safety knowledge or abilities as well as being misinformed about some areas of the sport.eg cutaway procedures or when to actually cut-away.
They also tended to turn up with semi-worn out HP canopies sold to them by irresponsible people more intersted in making a buck than safety levels.

There was some mention of ol' time DZSO restricting more vigorously the type and size of parachute that a novice could use. This alone would seriously reduce the number of incidents as it is common for people with less than 100 jumps to be buzzing around with the latest gear. One mistake becomes an incident rather than what could have been an injury free learning experience on a slower canopy. This might also encourage people to hang in the sport until they are considered skillful enough to be rewarded with access to a hot canopy.

There has been some talk about who is negligent by allowing novices to use HP canopies. Lots of buck passing (paying off judges and such ) but no one wants to take responsibility for saying for example 'NO you can't use that until you've got 100 jumps.'

on Responsibilty. I suppose this relies on the DZO being a knowledgable and respectable caring individual. One or two places I've worked at the head bods were still learning how to fly themselves . These places had none of the finer atttudes that a highly skilled long term team of skydivers/competitors has to offer. The way these low skilled guys employed in their own image was also a bit of a worry. Employ the person who would turn a blind eye to the corners being cut or safety issues totally ignored. eg adequate student gear maintenance. Something as simple as slipping leg straps has killed many inexperienced people.

Point out any deficiencies at a low skill DZ and you get attacked as a traitor to their cause which is often no more complicated than money, booze and big-headed incompetence....with the actual work being in general beyond their abilities.

This may sound a bit too strong as most operations do seem to be based on a good level of decency.
I do find it peculiar how a lot of operators don't like being shown that things could be done better. The good places are more than interested if you have some improvements to share with them.

Sure it's mostly good ()...the thing is it can be and has been a whole lot better.
If you haven't seen it then you weren't there.

Skydiving is more than just a cash cow.
Often the people that find it TOO hard to do correctly shouldn't be doin' it in the first place. They're much better ast deflecting blame or 'shooting the messenger'.

And they'll be the ones telling us we should take up another sport ... cause they're running it now.

I've seen enough bullshit incidents covered up and would greatly prefer to be seeing as much effort being put into doing it right the first time .

If you don't know what right is anymore then that's a large part of the problem we're all facing. The thing is in the meantime people are getting hurt unecessarily .... some of us see this as the result of negligent behaviour...I know my lawyer did and still does.

• Quote

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Talk here is pretty cheap but its a good place to get a feel for the 'enemies of excellence'.

Ah...a word from The Keeper of Excellence.
I suppose that anyone who disagrees with you is an "enemy of excellence". Does the Pope hat fit well?

Quote

Lots of buck passing (paying off judges and such ) but no one wants to take responsibility for saying for example 'NO you can't use that until you've got 100 jumps.'

Really? That is quite an accusation. Paying off judges? If you know this for a fact, why haven't you told someone in authority? Or is it a conspiracy of all of "them"?

Quote

Point out any deficiencies at a low skill DZ and you get attacked as a traitor to their cause

I'm betting that your style has a little to do with it.

Quote

I do find it peculiar how a lot of operators don't like being shown that things could be done better.

Start your own.

Quote

Something as simple as slipping leg straps has killed many inexperienced people.

Really? Many? Where do you jump? From the tops of trees with vines around your feet?

Actually, every one of your threads paints all DZOs as incompetent boobs. If you approach people in real life with this attitude, I can understand why they are a little miffed.

btw, I am helping The Man keep you down.

[Paige 0]

If you have enough $ and the right lawyer, you can beat just about anything in a court of law.

OJ Simpson?!?! He could be innocent I guess.

Tunnel Pink Mafia Delegate
www.TunnelPinkMafia.com

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If you have enough $ and the right lawyer, you can beat just about anything in a court of law.

I used to disagree with you. However, events of the past week have led me to believe that this may be correct, albeit with an addendum to this - "Enough money and a marginal lawyer, when coupled with a judge who either is stupid, arbitrary or has no balls, and there is no telling what could happen." My disappointment with the court system has hit an all-time high in this last week or so. Depending upon what the court does today with another huge thing that I worked my ass off on last week (and is the worst miscarriage of justice I've seen in my short time of practice) I'll see whether or not I'll ever do anything less that a 100 percent effort to talk my clients out of going to court.

Yeah, I'm pissed.

Anyway, depending on the state, skydiving waivers typically are upheld. Here in California, I have not found a case where the waiver was not upheld. On the other hand, there is a case, Hulsey v. Elsinore (See my discussion here) that found that these waivers are enforceable.

The issue is that legal costs are rising, and it will cost a few grand to get a win. What's that saying? I think Oscar Wilde said, "I've only been destroyed twice in my life. Once was when I lost a lawsuit. The other time was when I won."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[MarkM 0]

Quote

Eg small people under large parachutes in marginal or changeable conditions can often result in putting the student into situations way beyond their control.
When these incidents result in death or serious injury it is seriously questionable whether they have been the victim of a negligent act.

What incidents? Where are all these students pounding in and dying under too big of canopies?

Frankly your post has no examples, no facts, a lot of BS and painting of DZs and skydivers in broad strokes. I can only guess you're trying to start a nice little flamewar.

[firstime 0]

***What insurance for instructors? I've never heard of a country that has insurance for instuctors...


It's a rider on your umbrella policy if you have one

[Trae 1]

in reply to Happythoughts 'Ah...a word from The Keeper of Excellence.
I suppose that anyone who disagrees with you is an "enemy of excellence". Does the Pope hat fit well?

If the hat fits wear it there's enough hats to go around.

Your replies appear to be very much from the 'enemies of excellence' side......fire away the putdowns ....not very happifying

in reply to MarkM 'What incidents? Where are all these students pounding in and dying under too big of canopies? '

I know of at least 3 that have been in and out the courts recently. Ongoing legal action restricts me from saying anything specific about these cases....so I'll keep it general.
You see if its too windy or turbulant and a lightweight person (usually a small female) has been put under a large canopy they are much more prone to the turbulance and/or being blown into areas where they can't easily make a safe landing given their low experience levels.
This is sort of common knowledge or should be.

in reply 2MarkM's "Frankly your post has no examples, no facts, a lot of BS and painting of DZs and skydivers in broad strokes. I can only guess you're trying to start a nice little flamewar. "

BS? ..you mustn't have really lived yet outside da bubble. This sheet and heaps more is currently IN the courts ...you want me to spill all my beans at once?????

I get the feeling there's a lot of student / novice/ skydivers that would just love to have their next 10 years jumping or medical bills payed by the dropkicks that are responsible for hurting them.

in reply 2 "Spread the love and fly! Tunnel for the Cause October 14th & 15th 2005 a JFTC fundraiser.

Tunnel Pink MafiaSpread The Love & Fly"

Some people just don't recognise my type of lurve
Not slinging here ...really...negligence and its effects on skydiving are ( I believe ) a valid part of skydiving awareness . I'm in the process of edemacating myself about it.
I find it interesting how many people apear to be threatened by such a subject. I'm also a little surprised that no-one has questioned my mental state yet..(what's wrong with yas?) as suggesting or stating that any PERCEIVED dissenter must be delusional is usually par for the (retarded) course.

My genuine feeling is that if we recognise negligence as such we can more easily protect ourselves against it's damaging effects.
Hurting or killing innocent people who put there trust in you is not very good for business.

Be careful now ...(that means full of care & care of fool...)