Mallion pre and post flight safety check.

[Guest]

Yes I do have a list of the wings effected and the numbers for them.

I got the mallions in the post yesterday and have fitted 3 of the 4 effected sets.

The other guy is currently on ops.

SW

[aquatix]

Wow, a simple safety report seems to have developed into a conspiracy theory worthy of 9/11 alarmists ......

From what I can see, an incident occurred and the BHPA have taken steps to identify the cause. With the help of the manufacturers they have found potential faults with a particular defective batch of maillons. Perhaps not a multi-million pound forensic investigation, but they have done their bit to alert all pilots to the potential problem. No vested interest or bias there except to ensure safety by preventing further incidents of this type.

No offence Simon but it seems bad form for someone with a vested interest in that product (ie a dealer) to be openly trying to discredit the report, when the manufacturers all appear to have accepted it. If Paramania dispute the report (or percentage of maillons affected) then they should be the ones paying for independent analysis.

Really, they should be doing their utmost to contact all customers / owners of potentially affected wings to ensure safety, rather than making youtube videos to suggest it was simply due to incorrect tightening. So far I and other customers have heard nothing from them directly (they don't know we sold them)

Anyway, that's how itapears to me as a customer / pilot, with no vested interest in any product / brand.

[pete_b]

Wow, a simple safety report seems to have developed into a conspiracy theory worthy of 9/11 alarmists ......

From what I can see, an incident occurred and the BHPA have taken steps to identify the cause. With the help of the manufacturers they have found potential faults with a particular defective batch of maillons. Perhaps not a multi-million pound forensic investigation, but they have done their bit to alert all pilots to the potential problem. No vested interest or bias there except to ensure safety by preventing further incidents of this type.

No offence Simon but it seems bad form for someone with a vested interest in that product (ie a dealer) to be openly trying to discredit the report, when the manufacturers all appear to have accepted it. If Paramania dispute the report (or percentage of maillons affected) then they should be the ones paying for independent analysis.

Really, they should be doing their utmost to contact all customers / owners of potentially affected wings to ensure safety, rather than making youtube videos to suggest it was simply due to incorrect tightening. So far I and other customers have heard nothing from them directly (they don't know we sold them)

Anyway, that's how itapears to me as a customer / pilot, with no vested interest in any product / brand.

I would like to see the report as I have a paramania wing.

No I am not a dealer or seller of any wings or paramotors, have no vested interest in any wing/paramotor manufacturing company and not trying to discredit anything or start a conspiracy.

I would like to see it to see how they test them, how many, how many failed (percentage wise).

Yes I maybe a bit of a closet tester of different things but if you don't ask/see these things you do not learn how they are done.

[Guest]

If you read my posts, I have given my reasons.

SW

[pete_b]

Tested an open mallion on the weekend it opened up at 41 kilos, but still would have held the lines on.

I cant test a closed one as I can only go to 200 kilos max

[pauldeakin]

Is that the norm? Having wings made in china?

Tom

Many of the top European brands are manufactured in Asian countries, this does not mean they are sub-standard in fact they often have superior manufacturing techniques, but quality should be independently controlled by paraglider company (as well as factory). Some of the bigger Paraglider companies have their own staff in the factory to control quality.

Not only paragliders, I noticed recently that the Helix factory is in Thailand.

Paul D

[Farmer_Dave]

The best way to regain consumer confidence is to fully accept the problem when it's been clearly identified.........then be just a public about explaining how the problem will be fixed and do it as quickly and humbly as possible.

[alan_k]

+1 Dave

[garyfreefly]

+2 dave...........................But it wont happen

I for one wont be buying another Paramania Product.....(Sorry if that upsets anybody )

but the way I see it I think the Number one priority should be Customer safety before any Brand/Manafacturer damage...

[Guest]

Guys, my comments on this are, A) I also agree 100% so thats another +1 for Dave.

But also B) Paramania had there hands pretty much tied as they were not given access to the damaged maillon at any stage. The delay was 100% down to the 'procedure' that exists for reporting such events and not Paramania.

SW

[Guest]

This has given me an idea!!!!

New post about to start....

SW

[Guest]

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6678

SW

[lukebanks1]

The point is: the maillons are substandard.

Paramania are ultimately responsible for ensuring standards of their products at the point of sale.

The manner in which Mike Cambell Jones dismissed the issue outright (via Theron's email) was in my opinion very regrettable and immediately made the issue a brand war.

What should have happened was an immediate safety notice issued to all owners via Paramania dealers whilst a investigation was undertaken. This did not happen wihtin what I am told was an acceptable time period and suggests to me that Francis was right to send the maillons off for independant analyisis with the BHPA.

Should Paramania have been offered the opportunity to examine the Maillons first? In an ideal world yes.

I have heard several people in person and on various forums pointing fingers at Clive accusing him of scaremongering.

I believe this to be untrue. Of course you can argue he should have contacted Paramania first but ask yourself what is the quickest way in the UK of allerting PPG pilots to a potential safety issue - I think the forums. No, this shouldn't be the case but it is!

Paramotoring really needs to sort its act out. These perpetual pathetic battles between PMC and the BHPA are a total waste of energy and prevent the sport moving in the right direction. Issues between brands are an unfortunate part of economics but should not prevent them from striving for the highest possible standards of equipment safety together.

For all those regulation fearers out there the best way of staving it off is to unite and regualte ourselves by pressurising manufacturers to conform to what we expect of them.

Is this achievable without the sort of regualtion seen in microlighting - I hope so.

I have no brand axe to grind as I am the proud owner of both Paramania and Dudek wings.

And yes the full report should be made available to all those who wish to read it.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Guest

[garyfreefly]

QUOTE

The point is: the maillons are substandard.

Paramania are ultimately responsible for ensuring standards of their products at the point of sale.

The manner in which Mike Cambell Jones dismissed the issue outright (via Theron's email) was in my opinion very regrettable and immediately made the issue a brand war.

What should have happened was an immediate safety notice issued to all owners via Paramania dealers whilst a investigation was undertaken. This did not happen wihtin what I am told was an acceptable time period and suggests to me that Francis was right to send the maillons off for independant analyisis with the BHPA.

Should Paramania have been offered the opportunity to examine the Maillons first? In an ideal world yes.

I have heard several people in person and on various forums pointing fingers at Clive accusing him of scaremongering.

I believe this to be untrue. Of course you can argue he should have contacted Paramania first but ask yourself what is the quickest way in the UK of allerting PPG pilots to a potential safety issue - I think the forums. No, this shouldn't be the case but it is!

Paramotoring really needs to sort its act out. These perpetual pathetic battles between PMC and the BHPA are a total waste of energy and prevent the sport moving in the right direction. Issues between brands are an unfortunate part of economics but should not prevent them from striving for the highest possible standards of equipment safety together.

For all those regulation fearers out there the best way of staving it off is to unite and regualte ourselves by pressurising manufacturers to conform to what we expect of them.

Is this achievable without the sort of regualtion seen in microlighting - I hope so.

I have no brand act to grind as I am the proud owner of both Paramania and Dudek wings.

And yes the full report should be made available to all those who wish to read it.

I Agree with every bloody word...couldnt have written it better if I tried.. I also hope self regulation will carry on the way it is but with the failure of self policing time and time again with quite a few different manafacturers I fear it wont be long before control will be taken away from us .....

[lukebanks1]

I have been contacted by Francis Rich. I think this should be common knowledge.

Dear Luke

Greetings

As you may know I am banned from posting on PMC.

Were I able to post there I would have liked to correct one point you made. It was not a matter of choice to send the maillon to the BHPA, I was required to do so. The Chief Technical Officer of the BHPA is the AAIB appointed investigator of "Reportable Incidents" in paragliding and paramotoring.

On the day this maillon failed I was the CFI in charge of a school in which a legally reportable incident happened. It is the law of the land that I report it immediately to the AAIB Chief investigator and that is quickest done through the BHPA reporting system, since a direct report to AAIB would eventually reach the AAIB appointed investigator at the BHPA after several days delay (particularly since it occurred on a weekend).

That is what happened, I reported by telephone and I was instructed to remove the maillon and several others and post them, recorded delivery, to the AAIB appointed investigator, Mark Dale. I had no choice under UK law to do anything other than comply.

In addition to that I was in telephone conversation with the supplying dealer appraising him of the facts complete with a photo and he has gone on record as reporting within the hour to Paramania head office. Paramania knew everything that is now publicly known and proved on the afternoon of the 2nd July within hours of the incident.

I feel it is extremely important for all to understand that paramotoring is subject to the law on reporting incidents and whether one likes it or not the legally appointed investigator of paramotoring incidents is the BHPA's technical officer.

So I did not choose to send the maillon to the BHPA I was ordered to do so by the AAIB.

If you wish you may use any or all of this in any public post you wish to make.

Kind regards, Francis

[aquatix]

That all seems clear enough now and unbiased. Perhaps more should be done to highlight the incident reporting procedure on here for PMC, BMAA, self taught or other non BHPA pilots ? If Simon doesn't mind, here is a link to a report form that anyone can use:

http://www.bhpa.co.uk/pdf/IR.pdf

Has anyone else experienced component failure, fatigue on pivot arm mounts, harness webbing / attachments etc ?

I've had one such failure, which in hindsight should probably have been notified - the webbing attaching the harness to the motor frame ripped away at the lower stitching points, allowing the motor to twist around my back. It resulted in an almost uncontrollable riser twist / semi-stall around 60' high after take off, then a broken prop on next flight - no injuries. At the time I was more annoyed at the cost of a new prop, and blamed myself for failing to spot the problem during pre-flight inspection (it was probably caused by a heavy landing on previous flight). I submitted a report & photo's to the manufacturer, who have since revised the harness design to prevent this happening again, but maybe it should also go to BHPA / AAIB ?