mjosparky 3 #26 August 7, 2011 QuoteIf anyone has information to clarify the situation, it would me much appreciated. It seems to me that is something that should have been done by your cohorts in NZ before launching campaign of miss information on the net. All the information and documentation is readily available if you take the time to look for it. To say Airtec’s story doesn’t add up tells me you are only using information others provide for you. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swoopguy 0 #27 August 7, 2011 QuoteSomeone involved in running the DZ contacted Airtec about getting a replacement unit right away, but mentioned no injury. It was in no way a full incident report. Even up until now the local Cypres dealer also understood that there was no injury. I also got in contact with another jumper at the DZ at the time, and he did say that the tandem instructor was sore from the landing. The instructor was badly bruised and his anus was ripped so his faeces were coming out of two orifices (one new one caused by a tear in his skin tissue). I would consider that an injury. He was out of work for over a week. Call it minor, call it what you will but there were indeed injuries sustained. The APF have been contacted to clarify the existence of an incident report. They have failed to respond to that question after numerous emails. QuoteClearly a two out has the potential to go seriously wrong. Sure has, and it was only the instructors skill that saved the pair from very serious injury. QuoteIt looks like Airtec were the ones whose digging found the error, not the sensor company. So the sensor company didn't warn Airtec, rather it was the other way around. It certainly does ‘look’ that way, though if you read the April 2008 publication carefully you will notice Airtec say they discovered the sensors failed by being exposed to high temperature 'after' the sensor manufacturer sent out the letter to their clients. The letter from the manufacturer explains exactly the parameters that needed to be met in order for the units to malfunction. That letter can be read in the post a couple above this one. So Airtec's story once again, does not add up. I have not seen anywhere at all where Airtec mention that their unit fired while under canopy, they do however go out of their way to mention that the other unit fired on the ground. Before the impending flame session and Ad Hominem attacks ensue, please be aware that clarification is all I ask for. If anyone has information to clarify the situation, it would me much appreciated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #28 August 7, 2011 The information is out there you just have look for it. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swoopguy 0 #29 August 7, 2011 QuoteThe information is out there you just have look for it. I have looked for incident report. Does not exist! I have Airtecs statement and the letter from the sensor manufacturer... Airtecs statements do not add up. What information are you speaking of, I would appreciate it please. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #30 August 7, 2011 QuoteWhat information are you speaking of, I would appreciate it please. That bridge was burned quite awhile ago.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swoopguy 0 #31 August 7, 2011 So Ad hominem and blind defence is all you have... Gotcha! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skybear 0 #32 August 7, 2011 Rhys, why are you so difficult? You made the experience that the Airtec people are dirty liers, so you don't like Cypres anymore. Even if I do not agree I respect your point of view. Now you have different choices of other AADs: Vigil, Argus (still banned in Aussieland? I don't know.), M2 (coming soon), KAP3 (still in production). Select the brand you like most, be happy with it and go jump. Clarification was already given by different sources. There is nothing left to discuss on that topic, everybody can build his own opinion on the presented information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swoopguy 0 #33 August 7, 2011 QuoteRhys why are you so difficult? Not so difficult, the implications of the evidence are what is difficult, I am purely asking questions. Do you agree that an incident report should be filled for every significant incident? Do you also agree that an if an entity is to make a claim (in an official safety bulliten) that no injuries were sustained, then that claim should be backed by evidence and not hearsay? An official safety bulletin is no joke, had integrity and honesty been used from the beginning, this debacle would not exist. The APF have decided the silent treatment is the best answer, and Airtec have decided that dishonesty is the best answer... this leads to a very dangerous precedent and one I am not willing to accept. It seems many here are willing to ignore this reality, that is their prerogative. I have mine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hcsvader 1 #34 August 7, 2011 Have you bothered to call someone from cypres and ask them these questions yourself?Have you seen my pants? it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream >:) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swoopguy 0 #35 August 7, 2011 QuoteHave you bothered to call someone from cypres and ask them these questions yourself? In April, before they made their modified publication, they made contact with me, they offered to fly me to their factory (from anywhere in europe) and show me around. I said I did not need assurance that their product was sound, I needed assurance that their word was sound. They did not reply. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
michalm21 0 #36 August 7, 2011 So they offered to fly you, meet with you where you could express your issues personally and ask all kinds of questions while taking a tour of their facility (on their dime) and that wasn't enough for you. well, tough shit. They went farther than they should have in my opinion. What a great company. You should crawl back to the hole you came from. Just my $0.02 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #37 August 7, 2011 jesus, it doesnt stop.. finally dug an old one out, gosh, if i was a moderator, i'd lay the BAN-hammer so hard on you and your BS.. “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swoopguy 0 #38 August 7, 2011 QuoteThey went farther than they should have in my opinion. What a great company. It would be cheaper and easier to simply be honest. To this day they do not admit injuries were sustained, and have not officially retracted their false and misleading statements. It would be very easy for them to determine if that were the case. they would simply have to ask a reliable source rather than an unreliable one thay have clinged onto. The difference between you and me... I witnessed the injuries. What a great company...? Great product for sure, the company I am not so sure about. It is up to them to decide to tell the truth, or not! What is it about what I am saying that you disagree with? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
