@Peter I'm not suggesting conspiracy theories, even though the whole PIA thing seems like a shroud of silence has been placed over the situation. It honestly does seem like Aviacom was "ousted" because they refused to be a member. That being said, I'm not denying that Aviacom had some questionable PR methods, not that they had units which may have had failures etc. Fact is, each AAD manufacturer had incidents when they were starting out and the results were very different. I think Aviacom's demise in the civilian market was the restul of bad PR, an unfortunate string of incidents in a short timeframe, and PIA.
The "unknowns" I refer to are the things like the ball bearing, the rig that was refused investigation by Aviacom, the student leaning against the back of the plane and that plane descending through activation altitude etc. Essentially, the circumstances seem to revolve around questionable gear maintenance, along with interesting "test cases" for the units at time of failure.
*I'm not 100% certain of the exact details of the incidents either, but I do know that each one made me wonder. For all we know, these units could have been dragged through beach sand with batteries that were 8 years old and frozen on the weekends to keep the gear "fresh". Who knows.
@Jerry Actually, this is the first I've heard of that. I heard that they wanted to avoid being named in further lawsuits, but I didn't see that they had no idea it was being used in civilian jumping. I'm certain if that's the case, they HAD to have turned a blind eye, or they're saying that to avoid implication in a lawsuit. One look from the supplier at the purchasing company's website and they'd have known. I seriously doubt that they had "no idea".
(This post was edited by Chris-Ottawa on Jan 24, 2012, 10:38 AM)