law suit after the fact?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/28/texas-teen-in-good-condition-after-plummeting-over-3000-feet-in-skydiving/?intcmp=latestnews

Ok, here it goes.
A 16 year old gets a massive adrenaline push, which goes bad.  Amazingly enough, the kid survives.

THEN the father says that he questions the rational of the company for allowing a 16 year old to jump out of a perfectly good airplane.  Oh, and he jumped too.

As a pilot, I can't think of a good reason to exit a perfectly good airplane in flight....other then an incredible adrenaline rush.  Of course I can't think of a good reason to sit in the back of an airplane at all (except airlines get excited when they find a non-employee in the cockpit)

The bottom line is that this seems to be a "family building" activity which the father took his daughter on.  When it goes bad he starts questioning the company that allowed it?   How about questioning himself.  HE was the one who took her.  HE was the one who paid for it.  HE participated with her.  HE was the one that gave approval since she was under 18. 

At which point does HE take responsibility for placing his daughter in a high risk environment? 

This reminds me of the guy who kept telling his wife to get closer to the bear at Yellowstone, then got upset when she got eaten. 



On the up side, in about 3 hours the sun will come up.  My little brother, the First Sergeant, is coming out to Bike Lake, and for the first time ever in a 20 year career, we will finally get to fly together.  This is going to be awesome.  That my dear Poots, is the best reason for flying a scooter....you can fly it single pilot.