Blind Faith

[Merrick 0]

Quote

"Although maybe it sounds bad coming from a competitor, the information (assuming it's correct) that he's giving is good to know."

Agreed.... not to mention the fact that absolutely none of Dan's post was "bashing" any manufacturer, everything he listed were mere facts in comparing other products to his. Facts, that anybody could see simply by looking at the competitor products, I noticed the overlapping in stitching on my old Sabre & thought it looked kinda shoddy. Now, I don't know what difference this makes as far as durability, but it definitely does show workmanship & attention to detail. I'm not Anti- or Pro-Atair, hell I fly a Hornet, and will probably never buy a cobalt, but I certainly went against the grain of what everyone at my DZ was telling me (PD & Mirage). I think the hornet is just as stable and flies just as good as any other semi-elliptical, slightly tapered (or whatever label you want to give) canopy on the market, & I got it custom made for less than half of the price of a new canopy from any other manufacturer, which was the most important decision for me. Anyway, regardless of whether or not you agree with Dan's tactics, the fact still remains that he was never derogatory, or tactless, he simply stated facts of construction, which is good information for any novice skydiver. It was good advice, I know of several people that have bought gear on blind-faith, simply because it was what everyone at the DZ pushed on them. Take my home DZ for example, the DZO is a Mirage dealer, has a good relationship with them, & absolutely swears by them, soooo, almost everyone at the DZ jumps a mirage, whereas I went with the Vector-M for my own personal reasons.
Long story short.... Collect all the information you can about any given manufacturer, then make an informed decision.... thanks for the info Dan!
Blues!
"Pammi's Hemp/Skydiving Jewelry"

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

One thing I really like about having people like Bill Booth (RWS), Kelly Farrington (Infinity) and George Galloway (Precision), among others, posting here is that besides offering excellent gear related information to us they _don't_ bash other manufacturers - they manage to promote their products without comparing them to those produced by others. To me that's an indication of their ethics and the confidence that they have in their products.

Just something to think about...
I know that the Square[1-3] stores carry rigs from RWS, Infinity, and Canopies from Precision. Does Square[1-3] sell anything from Atair?
The point here is that it could just as easily look as if you're bashing a manufacturer that sells a product you don't make a profit on.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Does Square[1-3] sell anything from Atair?

Yes, as a matter of fact, we do. We also sell PD, Icarus, Precision and Aerodyne Research canopies.
pull & flare,
lisa
---
On the other hand...you have different fingers

[billvon 2,421]

>What has happened is a product of the atmosphere that is now prominent in the
> skydiving community. There has been a lot of finger pointing in a lot of directions.
>Safety is important to all of us but I am sick of the witch-hunt mentality that has
> been developed. It will hurt all of the smaller manufacturers and anyone coming
> out with new products.
There will never come a day when someone asks my opinion on how safe a canopy is and I respond "I better not tell you, for fear of negatively influencing you towards one canopy or another." I will always give people who ask for it my opinion. Sometimes it's good - PD makes very consistent canopies, the Triathalon is almost the perfect first HP canopy. Sometimes it's bad - Saphires are somewhat inconsistent, pre-95 Sabres tend to open hard.
Personally, I would rather have new jumpers presented with too much information than too little. Most people are pretty good at telling advertising and meaningless bashing from real information - after all, they grow up with McDonald's vs Burger King, Coke vs Pepsi advertising. I think they will be able to use their judgement to listen to advice from gear manufacturers, instructors, experienced jumpers and 100-jump wonders, and decide how much trust to place in each's opinion.
-bill von

[prost 0]

I think it is good for people to share their experience with gear. What I don't think is a good situation is when every time someone is hurt on a canopy someone wants to know if everyone else sees that they are death traps. Trying to point out the good points of a canopy compard to another is great. I think that is vital info that must be passed to another skydiver. Taking one situation and trying to make it an issue of safety for an entire canopy line is bashing and not what i would call positive sharing. There are aspects of canopies that I feel are known to be negative like the ones you mentioned before. Sharing this with someone is great. When someone hooks themself in on a canopy and you tell a new jumper you shouldn't jump that canopy because look what it did to that guy, that is being a poor mentor.
William

[billvon 2,421]

>Taking one situation and trying to make it an issue of safety for an entire
>canopy line is bashing and not what i would call positive sharing.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I'm glad people bashed the nova - that bashing probably saved a few lives. It _was_ an unstable canopy.
>When someone hooks themself in on a canopy and you tell a new jumper
>you shouldn't jump that canopy because look what it did to that guy, that is
> being a poor mentor.
I agree, but I also think that half the job is on the shoulders of the person that gives the advice, and half the job falls to the person _getting_ the advice. Someone with 200 jumps who jumps a Stiletto 97 with inadequate experience and training might not give the best advice; someone who jumps the same canopy after jumping a dozen others over 4000 jumps will probably give better advice. I think new jumpers can figure out which is which.
-bill von

[hisgoofyness 0]

i couldnt agree with you more bill
i myself am a new jumper, and i can see a trend in those low experience jumpers that try to act as though they have seen or done just about all there is to do in skyding
i am not trying to brag about my ability to logicaly reason out the bs, just that it seems obvious to me when a veteran of the sport opens his mouth about something
also if i ask for someone's opinion then that is exactly what i want, i do not want a practiced marketing ploy of a speech, i simply want their honest opinion. i may be a bit off in my logic, but i want to hear from everyone i possibly can in order to better see the trends, and what appears to be heart felt knowledge that those veterans are excited to give in order to share their love of the sport to newcomers, i have only ran in to a few "skygods" in my conversations, and it was truly amazing how fast they singled themselves out
i appreciate everyone here on the forums, i have learned a great deal from many of you, but ultimately when it is time for me to gear up, the only person's opinion that matters to me from then until my feet are safely back on the ground, is that of my jumpmaster
just my .02
hisgoofyness
"kind of like a cloud, i was up.. way up in the sky..." nine inch nails

[Cessnadog 0]

Bill,
I agree with 99% of what you have been saying.
I do want to chime in on your statement on the novas though. I don’t think you can make the blanket statement that you did. I had about 300 jumps on 4 different novas. I really do believe that they had issues similar to the Crossfires. I don’t think that Glidepath realized exactly how tight the manufacturing tolerances were. My last Nova (after Glidepath built me a new one, my first one was awful even though it “measured” fine) flew fine even in turbulence.
Tim

[Merrick 0]

Quote

"I'm glad people bashed the nova - that bashing probably saved a few lives. It _was_ an unstable canopy.

Yeah, and what about the johnathan? same situation I believe, I won't even look at one without fear of getting hurt! lol
"Pammi's Hemp/Skydiving Jewelry"

[billvon 2,421]

>I do want to chime in on your statement on the novas though. I don’t think you
> can make the blanket statement that you did.
I stand by my statement that "dissing" the Nova saved some lives. Yes, many original Novas could be fixed by retrimming the canopy, but by getting them out of the air, jumpers were not injured by them.
Were all Novas bad? No. Were many of them dangerously unstable in turbulence? Yes. Does that mean no one should jump them? That's up to the jumper. By getting the word out that many of them _were_ dangerously unstable, he could make up his own mind.
>My last Nova (after Glidepath built me a new one, my first one was awful
>even though it “measured” fine) flew fine even in turbulence.
I put about 50 jumps on a Nova 150 - this is one that had been back to Glidepath twice and had the new line set. It was the best landing square I've ever jumped. It was also the least stable in turbulence. I still have it, and will jump it on occasion, but only under perfect conditions.
-bill von

[Cessnadog 0]

I am going to head off topic a bit here, sorry
I agree that dissing the Nova saved lives. How many people were killed under them? More would have been had they continued making them. This canopy was a problem if not made perfectly. I will go a step further and say that for many jumpers it could be a problem if it was perfect. For the right jumper it was a great canopy if you got a good one.
How many people have died under todays current elliptical canopies? Problem?

[billvon 2,421]

>I agree that dissing the Nova saved lives. . . .
>How many people have died under todays current elliptical canopies? Problem?
Most definitely. There is a difference, though. Novas killed people when they were on final and the canopy collapsed with little warning. Small ellpticals kill people when the function exactly as designed. I saw the accident at Perris this weekend, and the canopy was functioning perfectly - the jumper simply flew it into the ground.
So what do we do? I do the best I can to train new jumpers how to fly high performance canopies and make sure that they don't downsize too quickly. As a result, I get called a canopy nazi. Recently when I did that here, someone suggested I needed to get laid and that I don't know how to fly a high performance canopy. Someone else suggested that we try to prevent people from downsizing too quickly because we don't want new jumpers to make us "look bad," presumably by landing better than we do.
So I don't know what the answer is. We have a culture where jumping small canopies is equated with competence, and no one wants to be seen as incompetent. When we try to "slow down" new jumpers, they are invariably defensive and list ten reasons why they are exceptions to the rule. We have spotty implementation at best of the canopy control parts of the ISP, and few jumpers take advantage of the canopy training courses available. The result is incidents like the one at Perris, where a jumper pushes the limits of his skill right to the edge and sometimes beyond. That doesn't have to happen, but will continue to happen as long as jumpers write checks their experience can't cash.
-bill von

[Cessnadog 0]

Bill,
I hope to run into you someday so I can buy you a beer.
Let them call you a canopy nazi. I have lost too many friends to bad judgment and small canopies.

[SBS 0]

stating that pd consistantly manufacturers in high volume good to avarage quality in construction canopies is hardly a bash.
--------------------------
That's not what you said.
If you truely believe that McDonalds is a "good to average" quality restaurant, I would make a couple of suggestions:
A) Go out more often, to actual good restaurants
B) Take a better look at your neighborhood McDonalds
C) Ask yourself, "what part of the chicken really does have the nuggets?"
McDonalds is crap, and you know it. The way that you worded it was taken for what it was...comparing one of your competitors to one of the lowest quality food chains in the world. Don't get me wrong, I eat at McDonalds as much as the next guy...I'm not going to lie to myself, though, and think that I really am eating chicken and cow.
PD has been a leader in the industry for a long time...they have produced some of the best canopies on the market for their time period. I honestly believe that there are, in fact, better canopies out there at this point. The facts that you stated may very well be just that, fact. Your credibility, as far as I am concerned, though, is threatened when you make statements like you made about McDonalds. You can make a great arguement, that I think is your right, your duty as a sales person, and should be respected by those who look at it. i.e. - A)FACT B)FACT C)FACT D)FACT...I just don't see how throwing in point D) "Oh, yeah, and they suck", helps your cause any. I consider it to be unprofessional and unnecessary.
I am with the bytch on this one. I am all for manuacturers being on here and helping us all to learn more about our equipment. At the same time, though, what I appreciate even more, is that I don't see any of them making any sorts of derogatory comments regarding their competitors.
Blue Ones,
Steve

[prost 0]

I don't have a problem with the remarks that Dan Made in this thread. He stressed what he feels are advantages of their manufacturing process. Pd might be able to bring up other points that they feel are more important. It is fine for a manufacturer to promote their canopy by stressing what they feel to be advantages in their design or manufacturing process. I am definately not on the Atair bandwagen as I do not have any of their products and I think some of Dan's past threads have gone over the line of what I think a competing manufacturer should do. I believe that this is partly the cause of people falling back on Pd (the very thing he complains about in this thread), because jumpers are scared off by all of the stories going around of bad canopies, and they feel they know Pd is safe because that is what they have seen the most. But I don't think his comments in this thread were in the least bit out of line.
William

[Lindsey 0]

So did ya' billvon? I mean....get laid? Usually when someone suggests I get laid, I figure that they see something I don't.....and I try to take them up on their advice.....

Lindsey
some days it's just not worth gnawing through the straps

[scottbre 0]

Quote

not going to lie to myself, though, and think that I really am eating chicken and cow.

No need to "lie to yourself." The hamburger patties are 100% beef, and the chicken, while processed, is still chicken.
Course you'd be hardpressed to find me eating in a McDonald's. Their food is as disgusting as it is unhealthy. In an argument, you can never prove you're right. The best you can do is prove that they are more wrong.

[GrumpySmurf 0]

Out of line, nah. But it potentialy has a negative effect nonetheless. We are conditioned by the mass media to 'put blinders on' when we hear one manufacturer directly comparing thier product to another manufacturer's product. I don't know how many car manufacturers have claimed either 'largest in it's class' or 'safest in it's class', but I started to wonder, if everyone is the largest or safest - who is second place?
I think a better approach on addressing canopy fabrication techniques might have been to inform the public here on the points that Dan did, but in a more non-competitive manner - example might be in stiching technique - explain two different kinds of stiches, maybe slap in a link to a side by side .jpg of good and bad, then explain why side 'A' is stronger and safer than 'B' - never mentioning who the manufacturers are. Then saying how to spot bad stiches, what would be average stiches and what would be great ones. I really liked how Bill Booth addressed both 3 ring release tolerances and pilot chutes in an informative manner, but never really said, 'our product is better because'. After putting a set of RWS risers on my rig to try - I can say for 100% certain that my Jav. Odsy. will have RWS risers on it with my next canopy, after that I will also give thier rig a look at as my next container. Teach me what to look for and let me decide, from that you will earn my respect and my trust - and when my life depends on your product, the more trust you garner - the more business you will get from me.

[SBS 0]

If you would reread what I posted, you would see that I fully support competition and comparison. I specifically said that I do not appreciate, or find it necessary, to add a statement that says basically "oh, yeah, and they suck". Factual comparison is fine in my book. What you both addressed in your posts and said was ok was just that, that it's ok to compare. I fully agree, but continue to stand behind my statements regarding non-factual statements, based on the bias of a competitor, in order to shed negative light on a company. Had phrases like "they're like McDonalds" been omitted, I think his post could have been just as informative, more professional, and I would not have had a complaint in the world.
Blue Ones,
Steve

[billvon 2,421]

>So did ya' billvon? I mean....get laid?
Buy me a beer someday and I'll tell you.
>Usually when someone suggests I get laid, I figure that they see something I
> don't.....and I try to take them up on their advice.....
I've never tried that particular pick up line. Hmm.
-bill von

[polarbear 1]

I think that sounds like a good idea. Personally, I don't think Dan was bashing, just selling. Nothing wrong with that.
What I am interested in knowing is OK, you (Dan) say you make your seams a certain way, why is that way better enough that I should buy it? I have owned three canopies, none of them Atair (though the Cobalt has caught my attention), and have never experienced a failed seam. In addition, I have only ever seen one canopy (out of probably hundreds, maybe thousands) that had a failed seam, and in this case the seam was actually intact (the fabric ripped alongside the seam).
If you (Dan) simply meant to say that the quality of Atair canopies is at least equal to other manufacturers, so quality worries aren't a good reason to not buy Atair, that sounds pretty reasonable. I hadn't been worried about the quality, but maybe other people are.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

I specifically said that I do not appreciate, or find it necessary, to add a statement that says basically "oh, yeah, and they suck".

Rule #1: Don't go putting words into someone elses mouth, or in this case, if you're going to quote then do it. What Dan said was exactly this:

Quote

pd is like mcdonalds, they consistantly pump out avarage to good quality canopies. but they are not, the highest quality available.

I do not see "oh yeah, they suck". Why? Because it's not written there. What is there is that PD produces average to good quality canopies. Why is that a problem? Would you have been happier, perhaps, if he had used 'Cooker' or 'Fridays' as an example? Ignore the McDonalds references or replace McDonalds with the chain of your choice. What's important I think is that he did not put down PD.

-
Jim

[skycat 0]

Ok I have a question. Lets say you are 5 inches from the end of the seam and you run out of thread. Ok so you take all the stiches out and start over. Now you have a piece of nylon with a whole bunch of holes then you put the material back together and restich. So now you have 2 sets of holes for the same seam, cause it's next to impossible to put those holes exactly back on top of one another. How does that effect the durability of the fabric, meaning with the extra holes does that leave a seam that could potentially fail or not really the seam itself, but the extra holes along the seam?
Kelli

[SBS 0]

Would you have been happier, perhaps, if he had used 'Cooker' or 'Fridays' as an example?
------------------------
Yes. What he chose was what would be considered by most everyone in the world to be one of the lowest, if not THE lowest quality food available to man. Then, a statement was made that seemed reasonable. One may disregard the McDonalds statement as minor, and move onto the other...there is still, though, an image created, and an identification between the two...PD and McDonalds, which is unfair for 2 reasons...1)I don't believe that PD makes the worst quality canopies possible. More importantly, less subjectively, 2)Statements like this should not come from a competitor. You don't see any tv commercials (other than sleezy political ones) that do this, do you? They state facts that they believe support their side in the best light possible.
This is something that I would do in an arguement if I did not consider it to be inappropriate.
Fast food restaurants don't have signs outside that say "YOURE HUNGRY!!!". Instead, they have signs that are red and yellow, two colors that subliminally encourage hunger. Just as Dan made the statement about McDonalds, he did not say "they suck!". At the same time, though, by identifying them as said restaurant's equivalent in the skydiving industry, that is the image that can be created, whether it is meant or not. As a competitor, if it is not meant to be like that, it is upon his shoulders to make sure that that is not how it comes across.
You may consider the original post off base, but this is something that has been happening for a long time in these forums. Whether posting here could be considered advertising or not in the legal sense, I consider it to be a form of such. In this way, I believe that anyone posting about their competitors here has a responsibility just as if they were printing a magazine ad. I appreciate competition, and think that it's important that comparisons be made in a factual way without the addition of statements meant to create images that are unfair.
If anyone can say that they think McDonalds makes quality food, or that PD makes cheaply made canopies that could be considered the worst in the industry, I would like to hear it. Without that to back up the relation between the two, I believe that it is an unfair statement to say that they are alike, and insulting to the quality and image that PD has worked for so long to create.
Steve

[cloud9 0]

I find it very offensive that anyone would say McDonalds suck. They have been around a very long time and are the standard that other fast food places try to achive.
That in mind that's exactly what Dan was talking about with PD. You have to compare with them because they set the standard with the Sabre and the Stiletto. Every time someone talks about a new canopy they want to know how it compares to one or the other. On my DZ I walked in with a Heatwave the DZO did not know anything about it. He asked what it compared to I said a Stiletto, now he knows or has an idea. Then he said why would anyone want a copy when the real thing is available. This is a man that has been in the sport for a long time and has several thousand jumps. The message has to put accross to people like him and the only way is to compare with PD and say why this or that is just as good as or better then PD products.