michaelt

Thanks for your reply and taking the time to post, Pirate Mike. Glad you feel this way too.

Thanks for your reply, Zoom. I can totally relate to what you describe... I've been there myself and not having racked up the big jump numbers I spent a looooong time in this state what you describe. At the end of the day though I have to admit, I was the one that wanted to jump the big ships and be with the big boys even if that put me out of my league. The thing was, Bill always seems to have an awareness of everything and everybody on the DZ and he'd approach me, and tell me where I screwed up and how to do it better. And although he's quite direct, I never doubted that the only motivation he had was to help me be a better skydiver and have a safer DZ. If I would get hurt as a result of being overwhelmed, I should ask myself why I couldn't have just added one thing at a time to each jump rather than have all these new things at once cause sensory overload. Or why not stay with a smaller plane, a smaller dropzone until I'm "ready for Lodi" But for me to ask for millions of dollars, which all it would result in is making a lawyer rich, me miserable spiritually because I have to justify it to myself to make it "right" inside and put Bill out of business, rather than just correct "the mistake Bill made" I dont know, those to me are two different things entirely.

You have my respect.

I am glad to hear that there is. And that sounds like a great principle. Hopefully applicable to this case. You say you're "venturing" so would you know whether that principle is applied in skydiving lawsuits? And no, I don't have a moral problem with skydiving in the Wine Country, unless it would be at a dropzone run by someone that helps shut down Lodi in order to get more business ;-)

You know what I find amusing? The google ads on the side of this thread. NOT! Here I am trying to find out who else has a problem with Lodi being sued and look who's advertising. Well I guess that answers one of my questions.... who could possibly benefit from this lawsuit?

I am a little confused by your post, popsjumper, there's too many quotes and quotes of replies to quotes, but if I understand correctly you're taking issue with something the moderator said. Although I am not sure what you're having issues with, I would plead to keep this civil and not let this post go up in "flames" (pun intended). My reading of his post, I think he's merely saying that the rules are posted in Lodi as evidently and in plain a sight as any place, namely on your ticket.. And it's in plain English. Actually, I got one right here: "THE PERSON USING THIS TICKET ASSUMES ALL RISK OF PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. MANAGEMENT MAY DESIGNATE WHERE HOLDER IS TO BE SEATED AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REVOKE THE LICENSE GRANTED BY THIS TICKET."

Thanks, DSE, for shedding some light on this and and I hope for Bill and all of us in skydiving that this goes away that easily. I take exception with IEJuggalo's call for my post to be deleted. What are you saying, Juggalo, put a cork in my mouth, fold my hands in my lap and "wait until this case is CLOSED" and Lodi gets shut down while a lawyer walks with millions in fees? You know for me this goes a lot deeper than even this lawsuit. So the fellow that told me about this thing, and you know who you are, I used to jump with him and when I asked him whether that's okay with him what is going on and only half jokingly asked whether he would sue me too if my pilot chute opens in his face, but to my surprise he actually couldn't just say "NO, I wouldn't". I mean what's next? Not only waivers to the DZ operator but waivers for and with everybody you go on a load with? I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather not put a cork in my mouth and wait until that's the state of the sport, but let you know how I feel and ask how everybody else feels. It seems to me this discussion is long overdue rather than ready for censorship.

Thanks for the link, NWFlyer... I wasn't aware of this thread I just joined. Interesting read... I wonder though where this anonymous poster is coming from... seems like a hit piece, no? I quote: "Bill should have at least lowered the nose and did not, now with the other 6 very experienced instructors on the plane testifying against Bill, well lets just say it won't be cheap." It doesn't sound like "ts1962" who posted was on the load, and no, neither was I, but if I read this I wonder... if there were "6 very experienced instructors" on that load, isn't it weird that not one of them tried to prevent that guy from jumping out if it was really that dangerous? Just trying to understand what's going on.

I have recently found out that Bill and Kathy Dause from Lodi are being slapped with a lawsuit in the millions that could easily shut them down if the fellow skydiver who is bringing on the suit prevails. From what I understand a skydiver with about 100 jumps seriously hurt himself jumping out of the plane and hitting the tail, which is a real tragedy. I found a newspaper report in the local newspaper here: http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2008/04/26/news/7_parachute_080426.txt Although I feel for the guy and yet I am not gonna stop skydiving because of this either. You? And while I am not a regular at Lodi, I have to say, but over all the years I jumped there Bill and Kathy represent to me not only a rare dropzone that isnt about profits, but all about jumping, and maybe the last bastion of freedom where the waiver still fits on the back of the ticket for those few who somehow have not heard yet that they can get hurt or killed doing this... in other word... Lodi is one of the few places where you don't have to cover up your intelligence and responsibility for self with a dozen pages of legalese and a sticker on your forehead that tells you at all times that THE GROUND MIGHT BE CLOSER THAN IT APPEARS. My questions to the skydiving community here in this forum: Is anybody else troubled by this? And second... if Lodi has to shut down as a result of this, are we as skydivers, those who ever jumped there and those who will never be able to do so then....are we okay with this? Who would possibly benefit from this? And what can we do to support Bill and Kathy?