|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will not allow anyone to say there is a problem with the design on this plane. |
|
|
|
|
There is a problem with the design on this plane. (oops - I forgot you wouldn't allow that) Actually it's probably a quality control issue - It is, however, retarded to assume that because someone has a failure with an item that you have great success with that he is abusing or dis-respecting the item. So in turn - when you have a failure and other people aren't - then should it be assumed you're dis-respecting the product or abusing it ?
I saw Scott's wing come off, and it sure didn't seem like his snaps are any nastier than anyone elses... (I think mine are far more violent) I don't think that anyone will try to stop you from buying another airframe. PAU needs loyal customers to make up for folks like me who probably won't buy this particular model at least after seeing 2 failures myself in person.
The 'expert' witness does exist and he's a designer and kit producer of world renowned aircraft for many many years. His opinion is probably one worth nothing. His anonymity may not endure but it should be his decision whether or not to feed this frenzy.
Another point made by the 'mob' is totally moot and begs these questions:
Should safety only be of concern where there are crowds such as at contests ?
Is where a plane crashes as it fails predictable ?
Is the way in which it fails going to be exactly the same ?
And is the issue of safety different between the practice field and the contest field ? Of course it is - with a greater crowd of people and property and children running around - chances are far greater of an injury during the mishap.
I'm not really arguing with anyone here - just pointing out a few things that might have been overlooked. I don't own a PAU and have no stake in the company or any qualms with its stellar reputation. I was considering the purchase of this particular airframe but that has changed to not considering.