The way I see it, as a lowly nobody senior rigger, is like this:
In two incidents, a problem was found with the Argus cutter not completely severing the closing loop. Aviacom acknowledged the problem and attempted to solve it by recalling all cutters made before April(ish) 2007.
A third incident uncovered the same problem with a newer cutter. This implies that Aviacom hasn't fixed the problem.
Now the issue is known to the public, including lawyers. So the manufacturers are disallowing Argus use until Aviacom gets their shit straight.
Like it has been said above, all AAD manufacturers have had issues to solve, so I'm not trying to badmouth Aviacom. But I can see the point of view of the container manufacturers that don't want to be sued out of existence.
So why are the H/C manufacturers not banning the Vigil?
It has fired in the plane, and the manufacturer says they won't fix it because it isn't broken.
Why would the H/C manufacturers not be scared of that AAD as well?
Something in this playing field does not seem to be level.
Seems to me that either one of these devices needs fixing before the H/C manufacturers would be happy again.
Now, at least one manufacturer I contacted said that they do not approve AADs.
But, according to CFR 105.43.b.3 -
The tandem parachute system contains an operational automatic activation device for the reserve parachute, approved by the manufacturer of that tandem parachute system. The device mustó (i) Have been maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions, and (ii) Be armed during each tandem parachute operation.
(red emphasis mine)
If the H/C manufacturer isn't approving AADs, then we can't legally jump the tandem parachute system, can we?
Anyway, why aren't the two AADs treated the same way?
Either one could easily cause a catastrophe should it repeat a known behavior at the wrong time.
So why is one banned and not the other?
I'm certainly not a rigger... but as far as banning one and not the other, the issues between the two AADs are completely different.
The Argus has been proven to not properly cut the closing loop and this has not been properly corrected. (Seems pretty cut and dry)
The Vigil, had 2 miss-fires in the incident that you mentioned, that seem to be due to a combination or rare set of circumstances. This has yet to be proven as a defined problem with the device. (not yet cut and dry)
Ultimately one is an obviously known problem... and the other is yet just a 'phenomenon'.
(This post was edited by ridestrong on Mar 23, 2011, 9:22 AM)
Post edited by ridestrong
() on Mar 23, 2011, 9:22 AM