mark 107 #26 April 20, 2011 QuoteSo, so far, you reject the results of an investigation requested by Aviacom? http://tools.emailgarage.com/Pub/Asset.ashx?Id=23c77610-0dde-4a9f-98bc-64da7820cdf0&MessageId=509493486 I accept these conclusions as stated: . . The cutter was damaged in use . . The loop material could not have caused any damage to the hardened steel blade. However, the report also concludes, "Without the damage, there is no reason why the cutter should not have performed as designed." That conclusion is not supported by the evidence in the report, and the report itself does not state that the steel ball caused the damage. The report doesn't rule out other possibilities, and so the investigation is incomplete. Three things would be helpful: . . Close-up photos of the steel ball, showing scuffing, scarring, and/or deformation; . . Duplication of the cutter malfunction; and . . Examination of the Poland, Portugal, and Italy cutters to see if they show any damage or similar damage. Aviacom's best interests would be served by having these tests done by an independent investigator with no ties to any AAD manufacturer. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #27 April 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteAndy, have you read all the documentation on this issue. The letter to PIA from Goorts reads like the ravings of a mad man. He accuses Air Tec of every death since the assassination of Kennedy. Sparky An misleading post to detract the topic away from the subject and into a bonfire like postwhore fest... you are talking porkie pies! What does that mean??????? SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #28 April 21, 2011 Porkey pies = lies!!!"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
mjosparky 4 #29 April 21, 2011 QuoteI hope argus go ahead with their $10 mil lawsuit getting every cent out of the PIA. Definately something fowl in the air regarding the PIA. Lets see if this post gets deleted bahahahaha (moon) Do you suggest that AiraCom sue the British Parachute Association, the Australian Parachute Association, the Dutch Parachute Association, the New Zealand Parachute Industry Association, the Aeroservizi Reggio Emilia SRl, the MINI STEERSTWO INFRASTRUKTURY,and Paulo Moreira da Silva of Portugal? SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #30 April 21, 2011 QuotePorkey pies = lies!!! Well heck, no I understand. If you agree it is fact, if you disagree it is a lie. That makes you life simple. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #31 April 21, 2011 no it is not that simple, you daid they blamed every death since kennedy.... You were talking shit and the reson you talked such shit was to detract from the subject that you seem to be having trouble grasping/wish to dissolve... you said blatant lies (hidden as exagerated sarcasm) to try to defame a person with a legitemate concern."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
swoopgaz 0 #32 April 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteI hope argus go ahead with their $10 mil lawsuit getting every cent out of the PIA. Definately something fowl in the air regarding the PIA. Lets see if this post gets deleted bahahahaha (moon) Do you suggest that AiraCom sue the British Parachute Association, the Australian Parachute Association, the Dutch Parachute Association, the New Zealand Parachute Industry Association, the Aeroservizi Reggio Emilia SRl, the MINI STEERSTWO INFRASTRUKTURY,and Paulo Moreira da Silva of Portugal? Sparky No I don't suggest that, but the PIA seemed to be the driving force behind everyone banning them, especially with some PIA members having a vested interest in other AAD's. Definately something underhanded happening here with the PIA sitting on top of it all, hence why sue the PIA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
antonija 0 #33 April 21, 2011 Quote I hope argus go ahead with their $10 mil lawsuit getting every cent out of the PIA. Definately something fowl in the air regarding the PIA. Lets see if this post gets deleted bahahahaha (moon) It should be deleted because its offtopic and contributes nothing to the discussion (much like my post ) /me runs to get my tinfoil hat and popcorn Carry on!I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 107 #34 April 21, 2011 QuoteNo I don't suggest that, but the PIA seemed to be the driving force behind everyone banning them, especially with some PIA members having a vested interest in other AAD's. Definitely something underhanded happening here with the PIA sitting on top of it all, hence why sue the PIA. Some harness/container manufacturers have chosen to disallow Argus AADs in their rigs, some have not. Have you tried contacting the manufacturer of your rig to see if they will provide more detailed reasons for their decision? Better yet, have you tried contacting rig manufacturers who accept Argus AADs to see if they will provide reasons for their decision -- and what role PIA played in the process? Have you looked at the list of PIA members? The sport market is just a small part of the industry; the military and government sectors are much more important players. Can you think of a reason why those members would want to risk the reputation of their Association on this dispute? Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #35 April 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteI hope argus go ahead with their $10 mil lawsuit getting every cent out of the PIA. Definately something fowl in the air regarding the PIA. Lets see if this post gets deleted bahahahaha (moon) Do you suggest that AiraCom sue the British Parachute Association, the Australian Parachute Association, the Dutch Parachute Association, the New Zealand Parachute Industry Association, the Aeroservizi Reggio Emilia SRl, the MINI STEERSTWO INFRASTRUKTURY,and Paulo Moreira da Silva of Portugal? Sparky No I don't suggest that, but the PIA seemed to be the driving force behind everyone banning them, especially with some PIA members having a vested interest in other AAD's. Definately something underhanded happening here with the PIA sitting on top of it all, hence why sue the PIA. I thought PIA was one of the LAST to jump on the banning band wagon. If that is true, then the law suit is with out merit. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 107 #36 April 21, 2011 QuoteI thought PIA was one of the LAST to jump on the banning bandwagon. Just a slight correction: PIA has not banned anything. Some (but not all) harness/container manufacturers do not allow Argus AADs in their rigs; some (but not all) national skydiving organizations do not allow Argus AADs. But PIA has not banned anything. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #37 April 21, 2011 Quotethe PIA seemed to be the driving force behind everyone banning them, especially with some PIA members having a vested interest in other AAD's So if some PIA members have a vested interest in other AADs, how do you explain the other members of PIA who stand to gain nothing from banning the Argus? What about rig manufacturers with nothing to gain from banning the Argus? The ban surely creates a hardhsip for any of their customers who have an Argus in their rig, so what's their reason for the ban? In order for this to indeed be a conspiracy against Argus, or underhanded in any way, it would have to involve every member of PIA, with each of them willing to risk the integrity of the organization by being complicit in the conspiracy, even though some of them have nothing to gain. Ditto for the rig manufacturers, they risk the ingetrity and reputation of their businesses by being complicit in the conspiracy, when they have nothing to gain in the venture. I know that if I found out that say, Sunpath, banned the Argus, inconviencing all of their Argus jumping customers, for no other reason than to 'play nice' with a PIA conspiracy against Argus, I would never consider buying a Javelin again. Part of it is the principal, and part of it is fear of what else they might do to effect the future use of a rig I might buy from them. None of the conspiracy theories add up. There have been some 'unexplained' problems with the Argus, and with some of them causing a container lock, the prudent thing to do is to stop jumping them until the problems are explained to everyone's satisfaction. I don't know why that's so hard to accept. Along those lines, if Argus would simply produce evidence, investigations and reports that would satisfy the masses that the Argus is safe to jump, then the ban would be lifted. In this day and age of information technology, e-mails to every rigger and national parachute association, and posting on DZ.com would go along way toward putting the word out that the Argus is safe and the ban should be lifted. I have yet to see any such evidence circulated. They have circulated paranoid sounding letters, and a poorly produced report from a quesitonable source, but none of that is satisfactory to anyone, but it proves they can get information around. If they would improve the quality of the info, problem solved. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #38 April 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteI thought PIA was one of the LAST to jump on the banning bandwagon. Just a slight correction: PIA has not banned anything. Some (but not all) harness/container manufacturers do not allow Argus AADs in their rigs; some (but not all) national skydiving organizations do not allow Argus AADs. But PIA has not banned anything. Mark So, suing them for "banning" some thing, would be pointless, as they banned, nothing. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bucketlistpilot 1 #39 April 22, 2011 Quote***a poorly produced report from a quesitonable source Sounds like the original San Marcos report.Ian Purvis http://www.loadupsoftware.com LoadUp DZ Management App admin@loadupsoftware.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
