How safe is it, really?

"C Kingsbury" wrote
Believe me, the problem runs far deeper than a misplaced belief in the
safety of small planes.

So do you know how many successful lawsuits there have been against
parachute manufacturers? The answer is zero. The last attempt I
heard about was against Relative Workshop. It was eventually settled
by the PLAINTIFF (the woman who got hurt) paying the DEFENDANT (the
manufacturer of the parachute system) for legal expenses.

So what's the difference? Why do parachute manufacturers win all the
lawsuits against them, but the aircraft manufacturers don't?

The answer, my friend, is HONESTY. First of all, skydivers are honest
about the risks they take (mostly, anyway). There's a real "Blue
Skies, Black Death" attitude that is prevalent. Second, the
manufacturers are honest. They tell you that this **** could fail and
kill you - up front and in big letters, not in the fine print. And
you sign a waiver.

Personally, I would love to see a similar approach to little
airplanes.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
So what's the difference? Why do parachute manufacturers win all the
lawsuits against them, but the aircraft manufacturers don't?

The answer, my friend, is HONESTY. First of all, skydivers are honest
about the risks they take (mostly, anyway).

I really doubt this. It's lawyers and the silly litagous legal system that
make obscene reward settlements a fact of life. I don't believe for a
second that almost all families of dead jumpers would refuse a chance for a
big settlement. And, the fact that parachute manufacturers do get sued
suggests something else is going on. Maybe judges recognize that only an
insane person would jump out of a perfectly good airplane.

There's a real "Blue
Skies, Black Death" attitude that is prevalent. Second, the
manufacturers are honest. They tell you that this **** could fail and
kill you - up front and in big letters, not in the fine print. And
you sign a waiver.

Does the waiver relate to the jump facility AND the manufacturer?

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"Michael" wrote in message
So what's the difference? Why do parachute manufacturers win all the
lawsuits against them, but the aircraft manufacturers don't?

The answer, my friend, is HONESTY. First of all, skydivers are honest
about the risks they take (mostly, anyway).

I really doubt this. It's lawyers and the silly litagous legal system
that make obscene reward settlements a fact of life. I don't believe for
a second that almost all families of dead jumpers would refuse a chance
for a big settlement. And, the fact that parachute manufacturers do get
sued suggests something else is going on. Maybe judges recognize that
only an insane person would jump out of a perfectly good airplane.

There's a real "Blue
Skies, Black Death" attitude that is prevalent. Second, the
manufacturers are honest. They tell you that this **** could fail and
kill you - up front and in big letters, not in the fine print. And
you sign a waiver.

Does the waiver relate to the jump facility AND the manufacturer?

moo


I think that Michael's point is that virtually everybody recognizes that
there is risk in skydiving but prefers to think that flying is as safe as
driving. Nobody takes their two year old skydiving.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in

I think that Michael's point is that virtually everybody recognizes that
there is risk in skydiving but prefers to think that flying is as safe as
driving. Nobody takes their two year old skydiving.

I'd like to see some stats on accidents vs. lawsuits before I believe that
dead skydivers' families are that different from dead pilots' families.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in

I think that Michael's point is that virtually everybody recognizes that
there is risk in skydiving but prefers to think that flying is as safe
as
driving. Nobody takes their two year old skydiving.

I'd like to see some stats on accidents vs. lawsuits before I believe that
dead skydivers' families are that different from dead pilots' families.

I doubt they are. It's just a question of likelihood of winning the suit,
which I suppose gets back to Michael's point. But I maintain that the
general culture of lawyers versus responsibility remains the real problem.

A funny story. Back in the late 80s my father was in a car accident when an
old woman crossed the double yellow on a blind turn. He walked away from it,
but after a few weeks his back started to hurt terribly and he eventually
had to have an operation for a herniated disk. A colleague referred him to a
very successful and well-known personal injury lawyer, who at first
suspected that his case would be worth between 250 and 500 thousand dollars
for suffering and lost wages, etc. But when they kicked the old woman's
insurance company they found she had only the minimum $30k coverage.
Moreover, she had quite literally no assets whatsoever. As the senior lawyer
was relating this to my father, one of the younger associates walked in and
said, "hey, Chevy's been having a lot of problems with seat belts in that
year's trucks, we could probably get them for two hundred." My father said,
"but I wasn't wearing my seatbelt." The associate said, "Don't tell me that!
A lot of times people forget things when they've been in an accident." My
father refused to go ahead with the case, but it provided a very revealing
look into how the system works, and this was fifteen years ago.

-cwk.

I'd like to see some stats on accidents vs. lawsuits before I
believe that
dead skydivers' families are that different from dead pilots'
families.

I doubt they are. It's just a question of likelihood of winning the
suit,
which I suppose gets back to Michael's point. But I maintain that the
general culture of lawyers versus responsibility remains the real
problem.

First off, I think they are different. Skydiving has a very different
demographic than flying. While it is not any more likely to kill you
than flying (statistically, the annual per-participant fatality rate is
actually slightly lower) it is perceived as more dangerous. It is also
more physically demanding, and much cheaper. Thus you typically get a
much younger participant, and one who is far more honest about the
risks. It's not as extreme as it once was, when getting married meant
ceremonially burning your gear, but a skydiver with a family to support
and a non-jumping spouse is still more the exception than the rule. A
spouse who is a jumper is highly unlikely to sue, and one who is
childless and young is far less likely to need to sue.

The likelihood of winning the suit is also a lot lower. Waivers are
the norm rather than the exception, and they are GOOD waivers. They
have been upheld as valid many times (Hulsey v. Elsinore was a landmark
case - in California of all places) and more importantly, they have
been upheld as a matter of law - meaning the judge has not allowed the
case to go to the jury. That makes winning much cheaper and far more
certain. Hulsey v. Elsinore was actually appealed, and the directed
ruling was upheld on appeal as well.

It's certainly the case that we have a litigious culture, but the fact
is that the tort system is really the only realistic means of redress
for corporate malfeasance (the Pinto comes to mind). I fully support
our current system in its present form (it being the best of a very bad
lot) when it comes to normal consumer products - the necessities of
life. Caveat emptor is just not realistic when it comes to basics such
as housing, transportation, medical care, food, or employment.
However, I believe a different standard is reasonable for elective
high-risk activities.

As long as you present the case that small private airplanes are safe
and practical transportation, don't be surprised if the industry is
held to the same standards as airliners, trains, and automobiles. Once
you accept that they are simply dangerous toys, you can hope for some
relief. I am hoping that light sport aircraft, which will not be
authorized for any commercial use, will enjoy a status similar to
parachutes. That certainly seems to be the case with the certification
process for the aircraft (if not the airmen).

Of course in reality some of us DO use the planes as practical business
transportation, and paradoxically that seems to be much safer than
using the airplanes as toys (so much for the paradigm that never flying
when you really need to be there must be safer) but even then, we are
aware that the increased speed and convenience comes with a price not
only in cash but in safety.

Michael

I'd like to see some stats on accidents vs. lawsuits before I
believe that
dead skydivers' families are that different from dead pilots'
families.

I doubt they are. It's just a question of likelihood of winning the
suit,
which I suppose gets back to Michael's point. But I maintain that the
general culture of lawyers versus responsibility remains the real
problem.

First off, I think they are different. Skydiving has a very different
demographic than flying. While it is not any more likely to kill you
than flying (statistically, the annual per-participant fatality rate is
actually slightly lower) it is perceived as more dangerous. It is also
more physically demanding, and much cheaper. Thus you typically get a
much younger participant, and one who is far more honest about the
risks. It's not as extreme as it once was, when getting married meant
ceremonially burning your gear, but a skydiver with a family to support
and a non-jumping spouse is still more the exception than the rule. A
spouse who is a jumper is highly unlikely to sue, and one who is
childless and young is far less likely to need to sue.

The likelihood of winning the suit is also a lot lower. Waivers are
the norm rather than the exception, and they are GOOD waivers. They
have been upheld as valid many times (Hulsey v. Elsinore was a landmark
case - in California of all places) and more importantly, they have
been upheld as a matter of law - meaning the judge has not allowed the
case to go to the jury. That makes winning much cheaper and far more
certain. Hulsey v. Elsinore was actually appealed, and the directed
ruling was upheld on appeal as well.

It's certainly the case that we have a litigious culture, but the fact
is that the tort system is really the only realistic means of redress
for corporate malfeasance (the Pinto comes to mind). I fully support
our current system in its present form (it being the best of a very bad
lot) when it comes to normal consumer products - the necessities of
life. Caveat emptor is just not realistic when it comes to basics such
as housing, transportation, medical care, food, or employment.
However, I believe a different standard is reasonable for elective
high-risk activities.

As long as you present the case that small private airplanes are safe
and practical transportation, don't be surprised if the industry is
held to the same standards as airliners, trains, and automobiles. Once
you accept that they are simply dangerous toys, you can hope for some
relief. I am hoping that light sport aircraft, which will not be
authorized for any commercial use, will enjoy a status similar to
parachutes. That certainly seems to be the case with the certification
process for the aircraft (if not the airmen).

Of course in reality some of us DO use the planes as practical business
transportation, and paradoxically that seems to be much safer than
using the airplanes as toys (so much for the paradigm that never flying
when you really need to be there must be safer) but even then, we are
aware that the increased speed and convenience comes with a price not
only in cash but in safety.

Michael

Happy Dog asks;

Does the waiver relate to the jump facility AND the manufacturer?

I jumped once, just to see what it was like. The first thing that they
do when you get to the jump facility (at least the one that I went to in
Maine), was tell you that it's real dangerous, and that you could get
killed. Then, they sat us down and showed us a 1/2 hour long movie of
parachuting accidents (real ones), with folks falling out of the sky,
hitting the ground, and dying. After that, they asked us to sign
waivers that said that no matter what happened, EVEN IF THE PILOT OF THE
JUMP PLANE CRASHED ON PURPOSE (and similar wording for just about every
other possibility) that we wouldn't sue anyone, and that we were
completely aware of all the dangers.

Obviously, we couldn't sign away anyone ELSE's right to sue, so I'm sure
that if I had been killed my wife would have approached a lawyer, but
the fact that I signed a document that showed that I understood ALL the
risks, even the absurdly remote ones (like the pilot crashing on
purpose) means that she'd never win.

Anyway, the waivers I signed applied to everyone and anyone that had
ever been born, much less the facility and MFG.

It was an interesting experience :-).

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2004

"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote in message
Obviously, we couldn't sign away anyone ELSE's right to sue, so I'm sure
that if I had been killed my wife would have approached a lawyer, but
the fact that I signed a document that showed that I understood ALL the
risks, even the absurdly remote ones (like the pilot crashing on
purpose) means that she'd never win.

Wrong.

moo

the fact that I signed a document that showed that I understood ALL
the
risks, even the absurdly remote ones (like the pilot crashing on
purpose) means that she'd never win.
Wrong.

Close enough. Nobody ever has won.

Michael