Gravit8 0 #1 July 4, 2011 I'm looking for anyone financially impacted by the Argus ban. I would very much like to find businesses (dropzones, tandem operators, and dz shops) that have realized demonstrable financial loss as a result of manufacturer issued service bulletins and dropzone bans. Also, please let me know if you have been forced to replace a serviceable Argus AAD with a competing brand due to a manufacturer service bulletin (I only want legitimate situations where you paid money to replace your AAD as a result of a SB or ban). For example, if your DZ banned the AAD and you were forced to replace it to continue jumping, please let me know. If you have a tandem program or student program where FAA law requires an AAD in the rig and you were forced to replace them and paid to do so, PLEASE let me know. If these manufacturer service bulletins have caused you to spend money in order to maintain your ability to keep a business open, please let me know immediately. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #2 July 4, 2011 planning to sue them ? seriously ? get out of here please. scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hcsvader 1 #3 July 4, 2011 Yup, had to sell my unit at a discounted price and buy another AAD. But that was due to the APF grounding them (nov/10) and not the manufacturer.Have you seen my pants? it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream >:) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skybear 0 #4 July 4, 2011 Quote planning to sue them ? seriously ? get out of here please. +1 This will help nobody. It will just make skydiving more expensive than it already is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #5 July 4, 2011 Quote I'm looking for anyone financially impacted by the Argus ban. I would very much like to find businesses (dropzones, tandem operators, and dz shops) that have realized demonstrable financial loss as a result of manufacturer issued service bulletins and dropzone bans. Also, please let me know if you have been forced to replace a serviceable Argus AAD with a competing brand due to a manufacturer service bulletin (I only want legitimate situations where you paid money to replace your AAD as a result of a SB or ban). For example, if your DZ banned the AAD and you were forced to replace it to continue jumping, please let me know. If you have a tandem program or student program where FAA law requires an AAD in the rig and you were forced to replace them and paid to do so, PLEASE let me know. If these manufacturer service bulletins have caused you to spend money in order to maintain your ability to keep a business open, please let me know immediately. How about fixing your split personality first, Troll? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #6 July 4, 2011 QuoteIf these manufacturer service bulletins have caused you to spend money in order to maintain your ability to keep a business open, please let me know immediately. Let's see how this will play out. You sue a manufacturer for issuing a safety bulletin, the manufacturer is driven out of business, and then skydivers are less safe because they no longer have safety equipment. And this continues with other manufacturers. After all, everyone has safety bulletins they issue, sooner or later. And they are driven out of business. Or else, they just quit issuing safety bulletins, and cover up design or manufacturing problems, rather than let everyone know about them. And once again, skydiving becomes more dangerous. Yeah, this is a great strategy. But what the heck, if you can make a few bucks in legal fees, go for it! After all, you don't give a shit about skydivers or the sport. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
irishrigger 31 #7 July 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteIf these manufacturer service bulletins have caused you to spend money in order to maintain your ability to keep a business open, please let me know immediately.[/reply +1 well said john Let's see how this will play out. You sue a manufacturer for issuing a safety bulletin, the manufacturer is driven out of business, and then skydivers are less safe because they no longer have safety equipment. And this continues with other manufacturers. After all, everyone has safety bulletins they issue, sooner or later. And they are driven out of business. Or else, they just quit issuing safety bulletins, and cover up design or manufacturing problems, rather than let everyone know about them. And once again, skydiving becomes more dangerous. Yeah, this is a great strategy. But what the heck, if you can make a few bucks in legal fees, go for it! After all, you don't give a shit about skydivers or the sport. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Chris-Ottawa 0 #8 July 4, 2011 I hope you realize that Aviacom will win this OVER and OVER again. They issued the SB for YOUR safety, your PROTECTION, think about how that'll hold up in court. Yes, there may have been a TEMPORARY financial impact, but not once did they force you to sell your AAD, or force you to use THEIR AAD at any time, you bought it under your own free will. I can just see you standing in court after the judgement (not in your favor), saying: "But, but, but...I sold my Argus and lost money on it...but....Mommy!" Haha And FYI...there's many people on here who know people at Aviacom. If a case is filed, your name will be listed on it and it is public record, all you need is a case # which can be obtained in many ways. No use hiding your identity now...it's gonna be public info real quick. You'll quickly see just how many skydivers turn a cold shoulder to you. Then you might have to sue Aviacom for losing your friends too...yikes! This could get complicated for you. Yeah, it sucks, but no one forced you to buy an Argus, no one forced you to sell your Argus, and no one forced you to buy a new AAD. Suck it up..."When once you have tasted flight..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airgord 1 #9 July 4, 2011 QuoteI'm looking for anyone financially impacted by the Argus ban. I would very much like to find businesses (dropzones, tandem operators, and dz shops) that have realized demonstrable financial loss as a result of manufacturer issued service bulletins and dropzone bans. Also, please let me know if you have been forced to replace a serviceable Argus AAD with a competing brand due to a manufacturer service bulletin (I only want legitimate situations where you paid money to replace your AAD as a result of a SB or ban). For example, if your DZ banned the AAD and you were forced to replace it to continue jumping, please let me know. If you have a tandem program or student program where FAA law requires an AAD in the rig and you were forced to replace them and paid to do so, PLEASE let me know. If these manufacturer service bulletins have caused you to spend money in order to maintain your ability to keep a business open, please let me know immediately. Ambulance chaser!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravit8 0 #10 July 4, 2011 Nobody said anything about a lawsuit and I'm not a lawyer. Frankly, I hear a lot of people discussing the potential for a conflict of interest and the AAD manufacturer implies this is a motivating factor leading to vendor service bulletins. I'm just trying to find out how real this is. As for hurting the sport - how do you think it's going to go over if the FAA or FTC decides to implement tighter restrictions if it's learned this situation was indeed caused (or contributed to) by profit motives. If manufacturers aren't reacting consistently to problems with AAD vendors (like when a Cypres fires as designed but the skydiver dies as the result of a low opening). So what are your suggestions? Include AADs in the TSO? Ground any AAD model when an issue or fatality occurs? Maybe container manufacturers should ban high wingloads since many deaths occur under high wingloads. If this is all about safety, there's a lot that the container manufacturers can do and its their consistency across the field of problems that WILL keep them from ultimately getting sued... If you'd like to discuss this, I'd be happy to see some intelligent conversation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Chris-Ottawa 0 #11 July 4, 2011 Wow...it almost seemed like you were being honest there! So, why the hidden identity then? If you're on a fact finding mission, who cares if anyone knows who you are? Something to lose? Something to hide?"When once you have tasted flight..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airgord 1 #12 July 4, 2011 Fill out your profile, prove you are legit. ps. What does the FTC have to do with anything here? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mark 102 #13 July 4, 2011 Quote. . . if it's learned this situation was indeed caused (or contributed to) by profit motives. That may still turn out to be the case, just not in the way you think. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravit8 0 #14 July 4, 2011 The last time I discussed something on a forum that someone didn't like, I was called for 2 weeks at home and work by people like those who have already commented on this thread. Not gonna fill in the profile info after the previous thread comments - I haven't been inflamatory, folks - does it matter who I am? All I want to do is encourage discussion and disclosure of information. That's all the proof of authenticity I believe I need for the purpose of this discussion. FTC protects commerce. If a manufacturer misuses federal regulations (like 14CFR165) to drive millions of dollars in revenue from a competitor (I'm not saying this is the case but it has been speculated), the FTC would likely be interested. This is why I think it's important for the manufacturers issuing service bulletins to show the tests and scientific backing for their decisions and act consistently across incidents from all AAD builders. If it's about safety, why are people dying under low-opening Cypres-equipped rigs that the manufacturer states are working as designed? Why aren't there SBs for those? If the reserve doesn't have time to deploy - should they fire higher? They're only mandatory for students and tandems so what's the harm in making them safer? Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the situation with a cutter locking over a reserve pilot and causing a total mal after a pull. It's scary - I get it. I also understand that there are many dead bodies that impacted under perfectly functioning cypres AADs (I use this brand by name as the established 'standard' realizing that there are others on the market and others coming on the market). Why are there different standards? Especially with Cypres-activated reserves removed from dead bodies? I'd like to see the banning container manufacturers address THESE issues. We all read our monthly USPA magazines and we've all read articles or watched Youtube videos of jumpers who could not find handles and waited for the AAD to fire. Of course this is wrong but IT DOES HAPPEN and is documented. I propose that due to these incidents and the incidents of deaths under properly functioning AADs due to reserves not opening, they pose as much risk as the Argus risk - probably more given the market penetration of Cypres and number of incidents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Chris-Ottawa 0 #15 July 4, 2011 So, now you're changing to focus on Cypres and other AAD's when you initially started a thread to "provoke" (not "invoke") negative discussion about Aviacom. Now you've switched to Airtec and how "bad" they are. Do you know where you're going with this? Cause I'm getting the feeling that you have no idea. Your thought process has changed at least 3 separate times in 3 different posts. Get it out....what's your agenda? You're posting anonymously (or are you?), speak up instead of beating around the bush! What are you trying to accomplish with this? You've clearly got something to say if you're willing to hide behind your computer screen to say it."When once you have tasted flight..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airgord 1 #16 July 5, 2011 Troll, plain and simple. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Snowwhite 0 #17 July 5, 2011 QuoteTroll, plain and simple. PLUS ONE!skydiveTaylorville.org [email protected] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hcsvader 1 #18 July 5, 2011 dude, the manufacturers banned the use of the argus after they recieved reports that this AAD may have fired locking a reserve container closed. I think that is an appropriate response when you think about the seriousness of that situation. It was then left up to aviacom to respond to this issue. They did nothing about it, actually they said it was nothing but a conspiracy against them.... not the response I want from the company that build my aad. I had an argus and was affected by this before the most people were as the Australian Parachute Federation banned them in 2010. Yes I was pissed off but the way Aviacom handled the situation pissed me off even more. They may have a product that works, but they have shit customer service. So it cost me a few hundred dollars to figure out I will never deal with them. Oh well. Hey if you want to go after someone who has cuased financial loss to skydivers why dont ya look into Gary Lucas and Karage Krew... there is soomeone who owes alot of skydivers around the world alot of money!Have you seen my pants? it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream >:) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #19 July 5, 2011 QuoteFTC protects commerce. If a manufacturer misuses federal regulations (like 14CFR165) Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 1-866-TELL-FAA (1-866-835-5322) No pages were found containing 14CFR165. Suggestions: • Make sure all words are spelled correctly. • Try different keywords. • Try more general keywords. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tazsz 0 #20 July 5, 2011 Quote It was then left up to aviacom to respond to this issue. They did nothing about it, actually they said it was nothing but a conspiracy against them.... not the response I want from the company that build my aad. Yes I was pissed off but the way Aviacom handled the situation pissed me off even more. They may have a product that works, but they have shit customer service. So it cost me a few hundred dollars to figure out I will never deal with them. +1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #21 July 5, 2011 From a skydiving angle, you don't know what you're talking about. From a legal angle, you don't know what you're talking about. As to each: on at least a couple of different levels. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites theonlyski 3 #22 July 5, 2011 Quote From a skydiving angle, you don't know what you're talking about. From a legal angle, you don't know what you're talking about. As to each: on at least a couple of different levels. +1"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890 I'm an asshole, and I approve this message Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites piisfish 135 #23 July 5, 2011 Quote From a skydiving angle, you don't know what you're talking about. From a legal angle, you don't know what you're talking about. As to each: on at least a couple of different levels. depends on the angle, he could quite possibly generate some lift scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wildcard451 0 #24 July 5, 2011 Quote Quote From a skydiving angle, you don't know what you're talking about. From a legal angle, you don't know what you're talking about. As to each: on at least a couple of different levels. depends on the angle, he could quite possibly generate some lift Only if speaking with a foreign accent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davelepka 4 #25 July 5, 2011 QuoteI'm looking for anyone financially impacted by the Argus ban I wasted my time reading your post, where do I send the bill? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Chris-Ottawa 0 #8 July 4, 2011 I hope you realize that Aviacom will win this OVER and OVER again. They issued the SB for YOUR safety, your PROTECTION, think about how that'll hold up in court. Yes, there may have been a TEMPORARY financial impact, but not once did they force you to sell your AAD, or force you to use THEIR AAD at any time, you bought it under your own free will. I can just see you standing in court after the judgement (not in your favor), saying: "But, but, but...I sold my Argus and lost money on it...but....Mommy!" Haha And FYI...there's many people on here who know people at Aviacom. If a case is filed, your name will be listed on it and it is public record, all you need is a case # which can be obtained in many ways. No use hiding your identity now...it's gonna be public info real quick. You'll quickly see just how many skydivers turn a cold shoulder to you. Then you might have to sue Aviacom for losing your friends too...yikes! This could get complicated for you. Yeah, it sucks, but no one forced you to buy an Argus, no one forced you to sell your Argus, and no one forced you to buy a new AAD. Suck it up..."When once you have tasted flight..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airgord 1 #9 July 4, 2011 QuoteI'm looking for anyone financially impacted by the Argus ban. I would very much like to find businesses (dropzones, tandem operators, and dz shops) that have realized demonstrable financial loss as a result of manufacturer issued service bulletins and dropzone bans. Also, please let me know if you have been forced to replace a serviceable Argus AAD with a competing brand due to a manufacturer service bulletin (I only want legitimate situations where you paid money to replace your AAD as a result of a SB or ban). For example, if your DZ banned the AAD and you were forced to replace it to continue jumping, please let me know. If you have a tandem program or student program where FAA law requires an AAD in the rig and you were forced to replace them and paid to do so, PLEASE let me know. If these manufacturer service bulletins have caused you to spend money in order to maintain your ability to keep a business open, please let me know immediately. Ambulance chaser!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravit8 0 #10 July 4, 2011 Nobody said anything about a lawsuit and I'm not a lawyer. Frankly, I hear a lot of people discussing the potential for a conflict of interest and the AAD manufacturer implies this is a motivating factor leading to vendor service bulletins. I'm just trying to find out how real this is. As for hurting the sport - how do you think it's going to go over if the FAA or FTC decides to implement tighter restrictions if it's learned this situation was indeed caused (or contributed to) by profit motives. If manufacturers aren't reacting consistently to problems with AAD vendors (like when a Cypres fires as designed but the skydiver dies as the result of a low opening). So what are your suggestions? Include AADs in the TSO? Ground any AAD model when an issue or fatality occurs? Maybe container manufacturers should ban high wingloads since many deaths occur under high wingloads. If this is all about safety, there's a lot that the container manufacturers can do and its their consistency across the field of problems that WILL keep them from ultimately getting sued... If you'd like to discuss this, I'd be happy to see some intelligent conversation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris-Ottawa 0 #11 July 4, 2011 Wow...it almost seemed like you were being honest there! So, why the hidden identity then? If you're on a fact finding mission, who cares if anyone knows who you are? Something to lose? Something to hide?"When once you have tasted flight..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airgord 1 #12 July 4, 2011 Fill out your profile, prove you are legit. ps. What does the FTC have to do with anything here? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 102 #13 July 4, 2011 Quote. . . if it's learned this situation was indeed caused (or contributed to) by profit motives. That may still turn out to be the case, just not in the way you think. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravit8 0 #14 July 4, 2011 The last time I discussed something on a forum that someone didn't like, I was called for 2 weeks at home and work by people like those who have already commented on this thread. Not gonna fill in the profile info after the previous thread comments - I haven't been inflamatory, folks - does it matter who I am? All I want to do is encourage discussion and disclosure of information. That's all the proof of authenticity I believe I need for the purpose of this discussion. FTC protects commerce. If a manufacturer misuses federal regulations (like 14CFR165) to drive millions of dollars in revenue from a competitor (I'm not saying this is the case but it has been speculated), the FTC would likely be interested. This is why I think it's important for the manufacturers issuing service bulletins to show the tests and scientific backing for their decisions and act consistently across incidents from all AAD builders. If it's about safety, why are people dying under low-opening Cypres-equipped rigs that the manufacturer states are working as designed? Why aren't there SBs for those? If the reserve doesn't have time to deploy - should they fire higher? They're only mandatory for students and tandems so what's the harm in making them safer? Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the situation with a cutter locking over a reserve pilot and causing a total mal after a pull. It's scary - I get it. I also understand that there are many dead bodies that impacted under perfectly functioning cypres AADs (I use this brand by name as the established 'standard' realizing that there are others on the market and others coming on the market). Why are there different standards? Especially with Cypres-activated reserves removed from dead bodies? I'd like to see the banning container manufacturers address THESE issues. We all read our monthly USPA magazines and we've all read articles or watched Youtube videos of jumpers who could not find handles and waited for the AAD to fire. Of course this is wrong but IT DOES HAPPEN and is documented. I propose that due to these incidents and the incidents of deaths under properly functioning AADs due to reserves not opening, they pose as much risk as the Argus risk - probably more given the market penetration of Cypres and number of incidents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris-Ottawa 0 #15 July 4, 2011 So, now you're changing to focus on Cypres and other AAD's when you initially started a thread to "provoke" (not "invoke") negative discussion about Aviacom. Now you've switched to Airtec and how "bad" they are. Do you know where you're going with this? Cause I'm getting the feeling that you have no idea. Your thought process has changed at least 3 separate times in 3 different posts. Get it out....what's your agenda? You're posting anonymously (or are you?), speak up instead of beating around the bush! What are you trying to accomplish with this? You've clearly got something to say if you're willing to hide behind your computer screen to say it."When once you have tasted flight..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airgord 1 #16 July 5, 2011 Troll, plain and simple. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snowwhite 0 #17 July 5, 2011 QuoteTroll, plain and simple. PLUS ONE!skydiveTaylorville.org [email protected] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hcsvader 1 #18 July 5, 2011 dude, the manufacturers banned the use of the argus after they recieved reports that this AAD may have fired locking a reserve container closed. I think that is an appropriate response when you think about the seriousness of that situation. It was then left up to aviacom to respond to this issue. They did nothing about it, actually they said it was nothing but a conspiracy against them.... not the response I want from the company that build my aad. I had an argus and was affected by this before the most people were as the Australian Parachute Federation banned them in 2010. Yes I was pissed off but the way Aviacom handled the situation pissed me off even more. They may have a product that works, but they have shit customer service. So it cost me a few hundred dollars to figure out I will never deal with them. Oh well. Hey if you want to go after someone who has cuased financial loss to skydivers why dont ya look into Gary Lucas and Karage Krew... there is soomeone who owes alot of skydivers around the world alot of money!Have you seen my pants? it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream >:) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #19 July 5, 2011 QuoteFTC protects commerce. If a manufacturer misuses federal regulations (like 14CFR165) Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 1-866-TELL-FAA (1-866-835-5322) No pages were found containing 14CFR165. Suggestions: • Make sure all words are spelled correctly. • Try different keywords. • Try more general keywords. My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tazsz 0 #20 July 5, 2011 Quote It was then left up to aviacom to respond to this issue. They did nothing about it, actually they said it was nothing but a conspiracy against them.... not the response I want from the company that build my aad. Yes I was pissed off but the way Aviacom handled the situation pissed me off even more. They may have a product that works, but they have shit customer service. So it cost me a few hundred dollars to figure out I will never deal with them. +1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #21 July 5, 2011 From a skydiving angle, you don't know what you're talking about. From a legal angle, you don't know what you're talking about. As to each: on at least a couple of different levels. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 3 #22 July 5, 2011 Quote From a skydiving angle, you don't know what you're talking about. From a legal angle, you don't know what you're talking about. As to each: on at least a couple of different levels. +1"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890 I'm an asshole, and I approve this message Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #23 July 5, 2011 Quote From a skydiving angle, you don't know what you're talking about. From a legal angle, you don't know what you're talking about. As to each: on at least a couple of different levels. depends on the angle, he could quite possibly generate some lift scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildcard451 0 #24 July 5, 2011 Quote Quote From a skydiving angle, you don't know what you're talking about. From a legal angle, you don't know what you're talking about. As to each: on at least a couple of different levels. depends on the angle, he could quite possibly generate some lift Only if speaking with a foreign accent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #25 July 5, 2011 QuoteI'm looking for anyone financially impacted by the Argus ban I wasted my time reading your post, where do I send the bill? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
