Sad news for tandem

It is time for the membership to learn how the incompetent actions of one person screwed the pooch.

.

EDIT: nevermind, i figured it out.

So the short version is that due to a TI's negligence and Strong's knee jerk reaction (the Y-strap), Strong lost the lawsuit and has now filed bankruptcy?

Due to Strong immediately making the Y-strap addition, they unknowingly stated that they knew of a significant design flaw if the harness was used incorrectly.

Quote

So the short version is that due to a TI's negligence and Strong's knee jerk reaction (the Y-strap), Strong lost the lawsuit and has now filed bankruptcy?

Due to Strong immediately making the Y-strap addition, they unknowingly stated that they knew of a significant design flaw if the harness was used incorrectly.

It's my understanding that the y-strap stuff could not be entered as evidence because it's development occurred after the incident.
It was talked about in depos, but since the concept and development all occurred after the accident it was not something that SE could have forseen.

.

Quote

It's my understanding that the y-strap stuff could not be entered as evidence because it's development occurred after the incident.
It was talked about in depos, but since the concept and development all occurred after the accident it was not something that SE could have forseen.

That would make sense.

Its still too bad about SE and having to file bankruptcy due to the lawsuit.

Fuck.

Exactly what Ted said would happen.
Sounds like two dumb ass and negligent TI's have taken Strong out of the tandem industry.
That's pretty sad.
That really pisses me off too.

Please send your Merry Christmas and Happy New Year wishes to Ted and his wife Marcie to tstrong_AT_strongparachutes.com _AT_ = @

Ted will appreciate hearing from you.

Ted also has a minor medical issue at this time too.

You'll find him next in DeLand at the Expo.

.

Quote

So the short version is that due to a TI's negligence and Strong's knee jerk reaction (the Y-strap), Strong lost the lawsuit and has now filed bankruptcy?

Strong has not lost the lawsuit. Strong apparently moved for summary judgment. What that basically means is that Strong is asking the Court to find that, based on all the facts which are undisputed, no reasonable jury could find Strong liable.

What the Court said was, mostly, I don't think so. I'm not saying you're liable, I'm not saying you're not, I'm just saying that, considering only the facts that are undisputed, I can't say that no reasonable jury could find against you. So I can't grant your motion, and you will have to have this resolved at trial.

What it seemed to come down to was whether it was foreseeable that someone would misuse the Strong harness in the way it was misused. The Court said that it couldn't say that no reasonable jury would find that it was foreseeable.

Then why would SE file for bankruptcy, if not to protect themselves from a pending lawsuit and/or judgment.

Do you have any idea how much money Ted has spent already to defend this case? I do i talked to Ted about two months ago on the phone and it was already past 600K then and heading to a million pretty fast he said.

Yea pretty fucked up, maybe Tim & Sherry will cut him a big fat check for X-mas.

Quote

Then why would SE file for bankruptcy, if not to protect themselves from a pending lawsuit and/or judgment.

I don't know. There is no judgment against them according to the papers posted in this thread, but filing bankruptcy does stay the pending lawsuit against them. It doesn't make it go away, but it gives Strong a chance to catch its breath and assess what to do next. It's possible that they had paid their attorneys $X to do the summary judgment motion, and, now that that has failed, their attorneys have asked for $Y more to do the next phase, either prepare for trial or appeal the trial court's ruling. Maybe Strong doesn't have $Y right now, or doesn't want to spend $Y right now, and filing bankruptcy gives them time to think.

Or it could be that the bankruptcy is not related, that Strong simply has debts greater than their assets.

But this is all speculation. All that I can say for sure is based on the documents posted in the thread, the lawsuit against Strong by the estate of the TI passenger is not over, all that has happened is that the Court has said I can't grant you victory (except for on two claims) as a matter of law, you still need to go through trial.

If this whole shebang isn't clear evidence that raising the standards to qualify to be an instructor, then I don't know what is.

What was the experience level of the TI on the jump in question?

IIRC pretty fresh.

AMEN Brother

Again, 1000 jumps has always been my thought.
and a coach for a required period of time preferably at least 1 year. and while I am dreaming up the years to 5. Im done.

How about moving away from the tandem factory mentality of "here's your passenger, run to the plane." ? Every TM needs to do a harness check on his passenger, same as a gear check on an AFF student. Anything less in negligent.

Why aren't BOTH T-I's and the DZO in this as well?
Why is it SE and ONE T-I?
The DZO is the one who made the "factory" environment and the other T-I did the fitting.

Strong is in no way responsible for the Two T-I's and the DZO's neglagence.

Money.

Quote

Why aren't BOTH T-I's and the DZO in this as well?

The TI that originally geared up McWilliams was never named in the lawsuit.
The DZOs and DZ were named in the lawsuit, but later claimed to 'expend all their assets' and 'go out of business'. see doc143

Quote

Why is it SE and ONE T-I?

They are the only two parties still left after the original lawsuit.
The original lawsuit also named the pilot (Milford) and AC owner (Dr. Lee's company SPOT).
USPA was added about 4 months later, mainly because of this S&T NL that stated in part:

Quote

The two fatal accidents have not escaped FAA attention. In fact, the first accident, which occurred in October 2005, generated a field recommendation to FAA Headquarters that tandem jumps be halted until a harness modification was developed. USPA assured the FAA that all interested parties were tackling the issue with the utmost seriousness and urgency but argued that the industry should be allowed to react without undue FAA pressure. The agency agreed.

USPA settled in May 09. Unofficially, I heard that the plaintiffs got $40K from USPA.

Quote

The DZO is the one who made the "factory" environment and the other T-I did the fitting.

Strong is in no way responsible for the Two T-I's and the DZO's neglagence.

I completely agree.

.

"The incompetent actions of one person" AND one dropzone as well. The actions of that tandem instructor were considered 'the norm' (I believe) and the dropzone (I believe), over a long time I expect, helped to develop the culture of how-to-fit-a-harness.

The TI is liable, but the DZO's are JUST as liable for allowing such negligence to happen. No one is minding the store. No other TI's intercepted it either, leading me to believe that it was probably the 'normal' way to fit 'short-fat-people' by loosening everything off to the limits.

At least they all go down in history as the idiots that brought down Strong Enterprises. way to go - fuckheads.

Quote

How about moving away from the tandem factory mentality of "here's your passenger, run to the plane." ? Every TM needs to do a harness check on his passenger, same as a gear check on an AFF student. Anything less in negligent.

What a cock i have always worked in Tandem factories, and i have always checked my harness, This idiot didn't and it is his fault, not strongs', not his customers', not anyone but his own fault.

Maybe his I/E is a little to blame as he/she obviously didn't train him well enough.

I feel for ted.

Quote

Maybe his I/E is a little to blame as he/she obviously didn't train him well enough.

Yea I'd kind of like to know who that was he got his rating from, there was one TDMCC I/E in Ohio at that time running a "rating school" who's actions are being called into question in other ratings issued, the fact that this I/E was also being helped (campaigning for) into replacing Ms. Butcher's soon to be vacant RD seat by Ms. Butcher leads one to wonder if she was also pushing students his way too.

Quote

AerOhio Skydiving Center, Inc., is not financially
viable to continue to generate and/or participate in ongoing discovery and is currently in the
process of closing its business effective December 31, 2008.

In the suit it says Aerohio is out of business, don't look that way to me http://www.jumptoday.com same business name & same owners near as I can tell.

Quote

"The incompetent actions of one person" AND one dropzone as well. The actions of that tandem instructor were considered 'the norm' (I believe) and the dropzone (I believe), over a long time I expect, helped to develop the culture of how-to-fit-a-harness.

The TI is liable, but the DZO's are JUST as liable for allowing such negligence to happen. No one is minding the store. No other TI's intercepted it either, leading me to believe that it was probably the 'normal' way to fit 'short-fat-people' by loosening everything off to the limits.

At least they all go down in history as the idiots that brought down Strong Enterprises. way to go - fuckheads.

I hope everyone remembers that one of the ole' fuckheads,Sherri Butcher ND & SEC, is on the USPA BOD's come election time.Is this the type of leadership we need from our BOD member. They are suppose to be looking out for the sport not killing it.

"USPA settled in May '09.
Unofficially , I heard that the plaintiffs got 40 K from USPA.."


.. so then,,,,is it safe to say, that by caving,,, ( settling ) then stepping aside from further litigation,,,
USPA has provided said plaintiffs,, with a bunch of funds to use to go after the OTHER defendants....???
I don't know of too many lawyers who'll work for nothing,,,,,and so NOW are the complainants able to further the lawsuit,,, Against USPA members, by using funds, provided TO USPA,,,,,, indirectly by it's members....???

IF it's a liability insurance issue,, and the insurance company is making the payout.... Are NOT the premiums for that insurance PAID FOR by the membership of uspa?
So then isn't USPA simply making it possible ( or at least EASIER ) for the suit to continue???

just wonderin'?????

jt

Quote

What a cock i have always worked in Tandem factories, and i have always checked my harness, This idiot didn't and it is his fault, not strongs', not his customers', not anyone but his own fault.

Maybe his I/E is a little to blame as he/she obviously didn't train him well enough.

Someone else gave me a correction in a PM. I retract what I said earlier. Competent TMs check their students harnesses. Incompetent ones don't. It doesn't matter the size of the operation. However, I've heard of some operations so fast paced that I would have a hard time doing a good inspection, I fear. Has that ever been a problem for you?