mikefarmer 0 #1 February 9, 2002 Well, just thought I'd let you all know that I have sent Precision a letter (e-mail) requesting a response to the Tests in Skydiving mag. I had sent my reserve to them (along w/ $50 that I do not agree with) before the article printed. I am going to keep this post positive until I receive a response, or none. As soon as I get a response, or in 5 days if I do not, I will post my letter, and the response. I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, so will not flame away until I see further mis-handling of this situation.Missy the 225 lb. Meat Missile Sky World Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #2 February 9, 2002 For those of us who haven't seen a Skydiving Mag in a while can you summarize the ariticle here?Thanks - Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikefarmer 0 #3 February 9, 2002 Damn, I knew someone would say that!Basically, Skydiving and Relative Wkshp did pull tests of line attachment points identical to the ones in question, both without, and with the mod. Skydiving claims that there was very little difference in the force required to "fail" the attachment after the mod. They contend that the binding tape is failing, not the bartack. George Galloway disagrees with their results, so I don't want to flame anyone in case Precision presents a decent case. As I have said, I am already unhappy with the handling of the issue with regard to charging on top of shipping for a "mandatory upgrade." Maybe that will be addressed in their response better than it is addressed HERE. Check Out Question #8.Missy the 225 lb. Meat Missile Sky World Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tlshealy 0 #4 February 9, 2002 Mike,I think the only reason that Precision didn't agree with RWS's findings, was that in their tests, the attaching tape failed at a lower level, so after the double bar-tac, the attachment strength was doubled. But both agreed that after the "fix" failure occurred at between 400~600 lbs, boy thats comforting to know. I don't blame you for being upset, I think they should replace the type3 tape with something stronger, and they should do it free. Those attachments may be fine for a symmetrical deployment, but in a fast or unstable opening some attachments might be loaded before the rest are and fail. I don't believe I'll be running out to buy a Dash-m anytime soon.Good luck,BSBDTad Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #5 February 9, 2002 I too read the FAQ at Precision and I'm not exactly thrilled about what I see. Let's start with this:QuoteWe appreciate your confidence in our products, and we want you to be pleased with our service and response. We hope that we can help retain your confidence by providing you with our Merchandise Credit in the amount of $100 toward the purchase of any future main or reserve canopy.I understand they're doing this to minimize costs while attempting to maximize public image. The reality is that probably fewer than 1% will ever redeem these $100.00 coupons, but it looks like they're doing the world a big service by offering them. If they're really concerned about their ability to 'retain my confidence' (read: retain my business) then they can just pay for the damn thing themselves. But...QuoteThere is not a manufacturing "flaw" in your reserve, and it is not necessary to open your reserve container until the next scheduled repack is due. While the modification is mandatory, it is not a recall to fix a defect.I'm thinking that if they pay for the 'mandatory upgrade' themselves that they'll probably open themselves up to many lawsuits, correct? Isn't paying for it like admitting that it is truely a defect? It would be appreciated if one of the lawyerly types could provide some insight here.QuoteThose attachments may be fine for a symmetrical deployment, but in a fast or unstable opening some attachments might be loaded before the rest are and fail.That's not good. While it's unlikely to happen due mostly I suspect to cost issues, it would be nice to have an independent lab periodically test reserves from all manufacturers under several common deployment conditions. Does the reserve operate properly during symmetrical deployment, how about fast or unstable openings? Purely scientific data could then be published and the buying public could make determinations from the published data. This might also force manufacturers to design a better reserve, we would certainly all benefit from this.QuoteI don't believe I'll be running out to buy a Dash-m anytime soon.I've got a Raven II in my rig and after this and the Crossfire problems (Precision, as one of the manufacturers, has to accept SOME responsibility for quality control) I'm seriously considering replacing that Raven with a PD. Oh well, my $0.02.-Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikefarmer 0 #6 February 9, 2002 Well, I'm glad I'm not crazy. I am waiting for PA's response before making any nagative comments. Hell, they still have my reserve and mirage (for the record, I am not really worried about that). I will give them the benefit of giving us GOOD reasoning behind their action before I post an opinion of their treatment of the issue. I have much to say.Missy the 225 lb. Meat Missile Sky World Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BadDog 0 #7 February 10, 2002 In the legal world, the fact that someone takes remedial actions (fixes the defects) generally cannot be used against them later (that would discourage remedial actions, and that would be a bad thing). What I don't get is why it's okay to keep it in the rig and use it without the modification, but only until the repack is due; then all of a sudden it's not legal to repack it until the modifications are done. Either they need to be done or they don't. And if they need to be done, the manufacturer should pay for the modifications, not the consumer.CorporateLawyerDave aka BadDog Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #8 February 10, 2002 First of all, I believe that Precision should pay for the service bulletin. While at Rigging Innovations, I performed hundreds of updates and service bulletins for free. The high cost of free fixes eventually drove management to eliminate my position, but the bottom line was that very few Talons were missing updates, etc.Secondly, if I were mailing a Raven-Ma back to Precision, I would insist on Precision replacing all those Type 3 line attachment tapes with something stronger. Raven-M and -Ma canopies are the only reserves Precision built with Type 3 line attachment tapes, and they are the only Precision reserves that have failed. Raven-Mb s and all of Precision's other reserves use a stronger Type 1 herringbone weave tape for line attachments. Can anyone else see the connection? When this problem first reared its ugly head (circa January 2001) I advised Square One to sell all their stock Raven-M and Raven-Ma reserves - at a discount - to skinny people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aviatrr 0 #9 February 11, 2002 Quote I've got a Raven II in my rig and after this and the Crossfire problems (Precision, as one of the manufacturers, has to accept SOME responsibility for quality control) I'm seriously considering replacing that Raven with a PD. People just don't seem to understand the primary problem with the Crossfire......even if the canopy was built WITHIN TOLERANCE, it could have been a problem.. If one thing was at the edge of its tolerances, nothing seemed to happen - but if several things were at the edge of their tolerance envelopes(but still WITHIN tolerance), then there was a problem.. Call Simon at Icarus and ask him to explain it to you.. Do you have faith in Icarus(I see you jump an Icarus main) with the way they handled the Crossfire issue?I certainly agree that Precision charging for a service bulletin is total and complete BS, and I would be on the phone with George or Chris in a heartbeat if I had a canopy that was affected........so if you have one, CALL THEM! (I know your Raven II is not affected, so that is not direct at you Jim) Piss and moan, tell them you will boycott their products and encourage others to do the same, etc..As for my choice in reserves......well, I prefer to go with something that has proven itself over many years..Mike Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beachbum 0 #10 February 11, 2002 OK ... all this has sent me scurrying back to the paperwork that came with my DashM ... it IS a B version ... so you're saying that you feel like they are solid? Seems to me like if they felt a need to change the material of one of the components, that it SHOULD be a freebie. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #11 February 11, 2002 Raven-Mb reserves are not affected by this service bulletin because they have the stronger Type 1 herringbone weave line attachment tapes.In my opinion, Precision should replace all the lightweight line attachment tapes on Raven-M and -Ma reserves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikefarmer 0 #12 February 12, 2002 Okay, George Galloway called me this evening and left me his work, cell, and even home numbers. When I called him back, we spoke for almost an hour. He did say that he has seen this thread, so I hope he will correct any mistakes I may make.Mr. Galloway first talked with me about his decision to make the fix mandatory. He told me that he could not verify that the two jumpers whos reserves failed were in fact within placarded limits, but that he wanted to be sure his reserves were safe, so he issued the bulletin. He was very frank about the $50 charge, and basically told me that Precision is a small company, and simply could not afford to make the "upgrade" for free. He did inform me that canopies that were sent to the factory had all of the attachment points replaced, not just bartacked again. He did, however stand behind the decision to use Type III tape. I am not a rigger, so I cannot argue with that decision. He did tell me that he would be responding to the article in skydiving about the technical issues, and did not speak badly of its author.All in all, I got the impression that Mr. Galloway is trying to do the right thing with a bad situation. I do not agree that I should pay for the fix, but $50 is not going to keep me from fixing my reserve. I do respect the fact that Mr. Galloway went out of his way to speak to me (I think he has been doing a lot of damage control lately.) I also understand that most skydiving businesses are not rolling in the dough. This basically leaves any other questions I would have about this situation for someone with more rigging expertise than myself. I will make my decision about whether to keep my Raven-MZ myself, and suggest to anyone with questions about this ordeal call Precision.Missy the 225 lb. Meat Missile Sky World Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Opie 0 #13 February 12, 2002 First let me say thanks for sharing your info and efforts with us. I am a little unclear about what he has done with the canopies sent to him for the fix. Were all the attachment points replaced with something other than the type III tape??? Or replaced with new type III??? While I'm not happy about the $50. either, but I am more concerned with whether or not I should use this thing for a car cover.OpieIf your not on the edge, you can't enjoy the view! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikefarmer 0 #14 February 12, 2002 He replaced the old tape with new Type III if I understood him correctly. I was on my cell phone at my uncle's Tet celebration, so it was a strain on the old ears.Missy the 225 lb. Meat Missile Sky World Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
