doi

Brush off Vegas and get powerdirector. easy to use, really inexpensive, super fast...

Not so vast, quite simple really. ego takes us all over at some point...

the cover up is more about airtec having the information that the sensors were faulty before they failed... DZ.com are gong out of thier way to hide that.. This makes them complicit and many people know about that now. This website is seriously corrupted... People could have been killed and all anyone can think about is their pocket and their egos... shameless,,,,

It would probably be worth you while readng through the traah can. There is an archive in there of who is deleting what to cover thier tracks...

I suggest that you do that immediately! But you can be held liable for the moderators deleting posts, delivering opinions and subduing any to the contrary, this is the main centre for dialogue on the subject internationally so to think that manipulating the content of that discussion is not complicity is a mistake. This may seem delusional if you see this from the ignorant standpoint of not knowing what has been said, but once you look at it from a prosecutors standpoint the actions of using the whistle-blowing content on that conversation as a catalyst of banning individuals and groups from partaking in the discussion any further, then you see how you become complicit. Screenshots have been taken by multiple users of posts pertinent to the subject that disappeared, or so they have told us anyway. It is clear that Airtec lied, nobody seems to want to face the truth of that, including you and your mods, but the evidence is plain to see. That is the only point we have tried to put across in the topic though that is seen as some type of crime, attracted much opposition and is the only reason we are having this conversation. Otherwise I have done nothing wrong and you have blocked a bunch of people for simply pointing out an unavoidable truth. You and I have wasted too much of our time already so we might as well stop. If you wish to continue to block a whole (rapidly growing) dropzone of over a dozen skydivers because your egotistical moderators are not entirely honest with you, then that is your prerogative. What is quite clear is that you really need to take more interest in what it is that you are supposed to be administering.

Just throwing the options out there... You tube hits do nothing for your own SEO, better to have the people clicking on your own website...

Yet you are prepared to spend more time getting that last word in to protect your buddies. Rhys was simply stating that Airtec lied in a safety bulletin, he was banned for doing so. I did the same. And you are telling me that I should not do what he was doing… You are telling me to shut up not to behave… there is a difference. You can throw your weight around all you like, but the fact remains. All this is to protect Airtec. Rhys was banned for talking about it, neither you, nor bill nor anyone could give any reason why they were banned, you just did it and fell silent. I decided that people ought to know that Airtec lied, I still do. You act as if we have been throwing false accusations around and making personal attacks, when it is quite the contrary. Threat? No, not from me I have no reason to make a lawsuit against you. But in case you have not been keeping tabs, Aviacom have been financially affected in the realms of millions of dollars and have informed us all of the law suit they propose based on anti competitive behaviour. This anti competitive behaviour has been pointed out by many individuals on the website DZ.com of which you administer, and people such as myself have been banned for pointing out the very weaknesses of the arguments you and your team have been teaching the readers as gospel. DZ.com is obstructing justice by banning and making a mockery of people that have the audacity to point out simple flaws in the perceptions being delivered on the subject. I would say without question that these forums will play a great part in the outcome of these trials. I was simply implying that you should be a little more careful. LOL, I never thought that telling the truth was a crime? Good luck with your disinformation database. LOL Maybe you should get some sort of evidence from your buddies before you take their word. I have not mad a personal attack, have never been warned for one and if anything I have been attacked by and made an example out of by the couple of dozen people that have commandeered your forum. If you ensured that you moderators followed the rules, and ensured that others followed the rules, you would probably not have the Dorkzone.com label running around and you would attract more patronage to the site making it more attractive to advertisers. I challenge you to point out where I have attacked another member of the forum. You are not just covering the lies of your advertisers now; you are covering the lies of you associates. It seems you are unaware of the extent of the actions of you associates. Meanwhile you punish people that have nothing to do with the conversations with some weak ass excuse for not actually having the ability to control each user individually.

Try realxstream. It uploads the vid automatically as soon as it is edited also automatically by the software. all you have to do is tick a box. It is hosted on the RXT server and you can make it look as though it is your own website hosting it with an embed code thay supply complete with counters etc etc... This way your website gets the traffic and the friends of the perople that get the video are already in your website to bring you more business. Royalty free, skydive themed music is also offered with the software. conatact [email protected] for further information. We offer it as a free option on all videos at our DZ. No matter what 'anybody' says, nothing is faster or easier than realxstream for editing tandem videos and uploading to the net.

That assertion is only your assumption. I am a separate person to Rhys, and have offered you the finer details of that to prove so but only if you can assure me they will not be passed onto another entity (Airtec, APF, ASC) you still believe I am Rhys, I am not and I can prove I am not. Why not just sign the letter or offer some legitimate assurance and this will become a lot clearer to you. The DZ.com management requested that I provide my personal details to prove I am not using multiple accounts. I requested (immediately) that DZ.com supply a signed statement that those details would not be released to any to other entity based on the litigious nature of the topics being discussed. I have observed the moderators overlooking the rules on many occasions when it suited them. I have more than enough reason that there is a background snitch fest going on. You guys have made that quite clear. I was informed that it is not possible for the DZ.com management to sign such a statement. That is false, lazy or ignorant, you decide. It is quite clear that DZ.com are more interested in looking after the commercial interests of advertisers rather than allowing completely open dialogue of subjects pertaining to the actions of these entities. My offer of supplying my personal details still stands, if you can provide assurance that the DZ.com will not provide that information to anyone else. Rhys was banned for discussing Airtec's false claims in their official bulletin that is what prompted me to make an account to continue that message; we are a tight crew here. Yes my views are similar and we are friends, but that does not make us the same person. I am a separate individual and deserve my own opportunity to present my views, these views are pertinent to how the whole community views the AAD situation. The information I have provided in what has essentially become a whistle blowing exercise could effect my financial position due to my association with the other companies involved. This is a reasonable request don't you think? I have made this clear to you already. It is your failure the supply this assurance that is restricting other users in this area, not my actions Nothing else. I have been collecting Dialogue and messages from Rhys and other users that have been forced to 'shut up' upon request of DZ.com management. This includes threats of litigation and defamation statements form DZ.com moderators. You guys play a large role in what is perceived by the community as gospel, so I suggest you start to act within your own rules or you may find yourselves tied up in a debacle that you shouldn't necessarily be involved in, and most definitely do not want to be. If this information is needed in the future by anybody it will be supplied to whoever would like it. And for now you have inhibited more than a dozen separate skydivers form receiving information on incidents, rigging and other subjects, our rigger from reading details on rigging advisories etc. Not cool! I suggest you implement a more satisfactory method of inhibiting certain users from using the forums. You are saying that you will ban a whole DZ for the actions of one person... Unacceptable. Yes you can decide who can and who cannot participate in discussions with the broad nature of your disclaimer, but the more you lose your integrity and shift from the interests of the skydivers to the companies that advertise with you, the less traction any discussions on this website have to everybody. It is a shame that ego and failure to see the bigger picture has replaced common sense and dignity.

Niw that you have the information, show him 'The Mod'. Everybody that uses The MOD loves it, and uses it for ever more. I am not sure who started the trend, but it is commonplace in aussie? It realld does get rid of the loose goggle, uncomfortable goggle and dissapearing goggle blues... Sometimes it is better to provide a solution than complain about a problem...

The one and only solution for this is to ad; The Mod! The Mod is a cord lock and a bead or a rubber band. Use flexZvision goggles or any that use shock cord, either squeeze the shock cord through the cord lock larks head a rubber band throgh the loop so the lock can't come off, or, untie one knot in on the goggles, and pull the end through the goggle lens, then poke the loose end through the cord lock, then add a nice bead that has a hole big enough for the shock cord, back through the cord lock and the goggles and tie off again. the aim of the bead or the rubber band is to stop the cord lock from sliding off the back... Then the goggles can be adjusted to each customers face with ease from the centre at the back byu the instructor. We have frap hats here and all the goggles have them, though I have used them in the tropics with no hat and great results also. click here for picture of a cord lock

I am supposed to be banned but I can access the same forums. but not the others everyone esle at this IP address uses. You should just ban me, and allow others that use this IP address, to have their own access to all the forums...

No wonder there is so much Anti Argus and Pro Cypres delusional individuals here. When the moderation team takes a side, then it is open slather on the opposition. Once you find yourself in the middle of a lawsuit, then you may change your tune...? (ever see the childish bully stand to attention and talk all adult like when the teacher shows up ) Aviacom as far as I can see have not allowed anyone to jump anything other than what they consider to be a safe unit and those units have passed safety tests that satisfied the harness and container manufacturers (until recently). On the other hand Airtec have blatantly lied to us in a safety bulletin to protect their own financial interests, failed to give us pertinent information and this is all quite clear to all of us now with the fact arising that the APF do not even have an incident report on the incident. Airtec publicly stated in an 'official' safety bulletin that no parties were injured... that is a false claim and it pinpoints the inadequacy of their investigation. How would the FAA feel about that in these uncertain times? I think know who will be gulping their Adams apple right now. As a moderator (for your own good) I suggest you refrain from statements of defamation, especially when there is likely a lawsuit involved. And to conclude I will ask you a question, are Airtec allowed to knowingly lie in an official safety bulletin to protect their own financial interests, in your opinion?

Pure Ad Hominem and a megre attempt to defend an incorrect opinion.

Semantics and beating around the bush are not answers. Just answer the question or talk about the subject, there is too much Ad hominem in this forum and the moderators do nothing about it. Keep to the subject not the person asking the question please.

Bullshit, a complete intact reserve closing loop is required to make a (legal) parachute descent. It does not matter if you put some dodgy lawyer spin on it. I bet there is nobody here (in thier right mind) that would jump from a plane (knowingly) with a severed reserve closing loop.

I agree, the APF have the systems in place, but that relies on the fact that the DZSO's do their job. The APF cannot react to what they do not know about; they are not on the chopping block here. It s the DZSO in question and Airtec for insinuating they knew the extent of the situation when they quite clearly did not.

No, it has always been a situation of; Airtec did not perform and adequate investigation and inadvertently lied in their bulletin. If one is going to claim that no injuries were sustained, then it would be expected that they actually find out. Those words were put there exclusively for damage control and they were false. They did not even need to be there, though they suggest a full investigation actually occurred. It is not even mentioned that the incident happened more than a minute after parachute activation. That is highlighted by the fact the APF does not have an incident report, so therefore nobody but those directly concerned learned anything from the incident. That is the problem here. Had the specifics been requested from Airtec at the time, then the report or lack thereof would have been highlighted and the APF would have had knowledge of the incident and procedure would ensure that we learned from the incident with knowledge of it. None of this occurred evidently.

No, it has always been a situation of; Airtec did not perform and adequate investigation and inadvertently lied in their bulletin. If one is going to claim that no injuries were sustained, then it would be expected that they actually find out. Those words were put there exclusively for damage control and they were false. That is highlighted by the fact the APF does not have an incident report. Had the specifics been requested from Airtec at the time, then the report or lack thereof would have been highlighted and the APF would have had knowledge of the incident. If Airtec are only concerned with the function of their unit and 'not' how it impacts the function of the whole system then how are these guys acting in the interest of the sport and not their own pocket? Remember they were contacted by the injured (twice) and failed to reply to the correspondence..

OK so... The DZSO is neglegent as they did not fill out a report. The incident was well known, it happened, the APF should have known about it. Maybe they didn't. This opens a huge can of worms. We all know the incident happened, many people witnessed the impact of the incident, yet there is no paper trail to document it's existance. I did not need to read an incident report as I got first hand information and 'assumed' one was filled out. Airtec's investigation into the incident should have highlighted the fact that there was not one filled out. So the APF not having a report shows us that the Airtec investigation was minimal at best and that the DZSO did not do their job. Airtec claimed nobody as hurt because they were told that by who? Yet no report was filled out on the incident so that tells us about the integrety of the company (which has changed hands now by the way) where the incident took place.

Airtec - For lying in an official safety bulletin. The PIA - for publishing a letter strongly recommending the re evaluation of all manufacturers approval of the Argus AAD before the investigation had taken place. Also for not addressing the fact that Airtec lied in an official bulletin, misleading the industry to its own advantage. They even went to the effort to publish another document to change the statement from “Nobody was hurt” to “Nobody told us anyone was hurt” (or similar). That is an outright lie. Oh that’s right; Airtec is a PIA member... Aviacom is not... Consistency is all we ask for.

If Airtec investigated the incident, they would have (should have) requested the incident report. this has to be signed by the person that was involved in the incident (if possible), it then is processed and published so EVERYBODY can learn about it. getting your information from the company management has provrn to be unreliable, try answering the email (s) of the injured party instead Helmut!!! At the very minimum they should have mentioned the fact there was a 2 out that was unexpected, and they should have also not lied about there not being injuries... If they want to make such claims they need to do some research. Just like Aviacom are expected to do. I don't have to track down the report to know this; I am a friend of the person that was injured and witnessed the injuries with my own eyes. That is why I am pissed with Airtec... others are also aware but do not want to post here because outspoken people that pretend to know everything will discredit them… they are correct. Some of them simply do not read these forums because of the type of conduct from the most outspoken members (dorkzone.com etc etc.) It is you lot that try to discredit my (our) knowledge to protect Airtec that need to do the research. I have given you the information. So use it. I will no longer post in this thread about the Cypres activation as there is a more appropriate thread now. But you can bet you bottom dollar that Airtec was (positively) financially impacted by the Argus ban.

Why don't you try addressing the subject? Kill the message not the messenger. I have witnessed Airtec lying to protect their own interests, others have as well. So why don’t you contact the APF, get the incident report, re read the bulletins by Airtec and see for yourself who is telling the truth... They could have said, mild injuries or something similar but no, they wanted to go the whole hog and blatantly lie. "Nobody told us" they said, but yet we are to believe that they investigated the situation to its fullest extent. If they did, they know it activated under parachute from the data, and they should be concerned to know if everything was OK with the parties concerned... They continue to ignore and the only effort they have made to address the situation is put out another bulletin changing the statement from. Nobody was hurt >>>> to>>>> Nobody told us anybody was hurt. They might as well just flip us the bird. What sort of investigation ignores the incident report? Say all you like, but you come back when you know what you are talking about, I am a witness....

You missed the climb out scenario, you know when there is the greatest pressure difference and greatest danger to others... This could kill a whole plane load. And lied through their teeth to protect their financial interests... Ever read an incident report? Looks like Airtec can't.

Locking the container closed endangers one person’s life... the person that chose to jump with that unit... Free choice! Premature opening can endanger multiple peoples lives including a whole planeload.. So you could be endangered even if you do not have an AAD. There are a few scenarios where a premature AAD firing could kill people other than the person that is using the unit. So they are BOTH a problem and both need to be addressed.