rhys 0 #1 April 14, 2011 QuoteAviacoms actions through the whole mess, going back to at least the Poland incident = unacceptable and unprofessional I say bullshit, Airtec blatantly lied in their report of multipule cypres units firing when they sould not have, they swept it under the carpet and ignored the injured, while that injured (my friend) was out of work, out of $$ and in pain, they ignored him and lied. The preferred to lie and ignore him to try to make their products seem better to those that were interested. Aviacom have said their thoughts, whether you like what they say or not, it seems as though they have told the truth. Balance the playing field here guys... Anyway I don't want to take over the thread but I am stoked there is a resolve for this... ...now lets see it happen."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #2 April 14, 2011 QuoteBalance the playing field here guys... You could take that advice yourself. The actions of Airtec are not being called into question, but seeing as you have a grudge with them, you continue to interject their actions into this discussion. QuoteAviacom have said their thoughts, whether you like what they say or not, it seems as though they have told the truth Based on what? They denied a problem, and then it resurfaced. They admitted to one problem, offered a solutuion, and then the problem resurfaced. Now they have said nothing aside from accusing the 'industry' of conspiring against them. When did accusing the indsutry of conspiracy amount to a satisfactory response to a unit malfunctioning, and doing so in a way that could cause a fatality in the right circumstances? They have offered no factual information to defend their product or it's performance. Tell me how this is acceptable without referencing Airtec or Vigil, or any other company? In of itself, how is their response enough? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 261 #3 April 14, 2011 Quote I say bullshit, Airtec blatantly lied in their report of multipule cypres units firing when they sould not have, they swept it under the carpet and ignored the injured, while that injured (my friend) was out of work, out of $$ and in pain, they ignored him and lied. As I posted in an obscure thread elsewhere, it looks like Airtec didn't lie about injuries. This was the 2008 tandem firing under canopy incident in Australia, which (in addition to a ground firing) soon led to the Cypres 2 pressure sensor recall. Airtec recently told me that the info they were sent by a DZ manager after the incident was very brief and said nothing about any injuries, so they had no way of knowing. Sounds to me like the DZ manager was more concerned about getting a replacement unit straight away, than in the injury to his staff member. To be fair, I can't prove Airtec didn't lie to me, but it seems a reasonable explanation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GravityGirl 0 #4 April 14, 2011 Dave, I assume he is responding to this mornings announcement: http://tools.emailgarage.com/Pub/Asset.ashx?Id=23c77610-0dde-4a9f-98bc-64da7820cdf0&MessageId=509494586 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Peace and Blue Skies! Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #5 April 14, 2011 QuoteAirtec recently told me that the info they were sent by a DZ manager after the incident was very brief and said nothing about any injuries, so they had no way of knowing. Sounds to me like the DZ manager was more concerned about getting a replacement unit straight away, than in the injury to his staff member.... blah blah blah... bullshit. they were contacted directly by the person that was injured by email and they refused to reply, they did not have the professionalism to address the concerns of the injured. So they lied to you dierctly also. I will not beleive any safety bulletin from them again, though I will be forced to adhere to them. That bulliten was issued after they investigated the faulty unit and after they were contacted by the injured party. It is also highly probable yet undisclosed that that airtec actually knew before the incident that the sensors were potentially faulty. All manufacturers use the sensors and Aviacom at least were contacted about the faulty batch by the manufacturer before the cypres incident it seems, and that is reiterated in the following statement from Aviacom to the PIA; QuoteYou have been jumping to conclusions and damaging the Argus reputation, simply to create a commercial advantage for your affiliated AAD manufacturers. You are now bullying the other Harness/Container manufacturers into submission with your directives, under cover of product liability. You are taking our mutual customers in hostage, disregarding skydivers’ safety. You use a manufactured smokescreen to divert the attention from the numerous fatal accidents that occurred with your ‘member’ AAD manufacturers which claim a 100% safety record. Such statements are unarguably unethical, unprofessional, and certainly unacceptable. (see Ms. Jude Lipps versus Airtec: product liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranty). This type of ‘safety devise’ systematically fires too low. (See Fatality Carter Scott Shields, Cross-Keys, 25 March 2011) On-going misfires on the ground, in the plane, in free-fall and under canopy are covered up, even when a plane crash is involved (see NTSB report DEN08FA078). The use of illegal and defective sensors has never been mentioned by you. are you gong to accept that? and yeah I have a gripe, and so should you and everybody else!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrumpot 1 #6 April 14, 2011 So, further investigation is stating that somehow, a steel "bb" (for lack of better terminology) got into the cutter mechanism, and is what interfered with accomplishing a clean cut (at least in the San Marcos instance/case)?coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiverek 54 #7 April 15, 2011 Quotethey were contacted directly by the person that was injured by email and they refused to reply, they did not have the professionalism to address the concerns of the injured. Let's see this email, then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bofh 0 #8 April 15, 2011 Quote they were contacted directly by the person that was injured by email and they refused to reply, they did not have the professionalism to address the concerns of the injured. How do you know the email was received if they did not respond? Spam filters drop legitimate email quite often. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #9 April 15, 2011 What were the circumstances of your injured friend that points to the blame being on an AAD?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
