Forums: Skydiving: Gear and Rigging:
Argus ban discussion (Was Argus Ban List)

 


Coreefdiver  (D 15287)

Apr 14, 2011, 4:53 AM
Post #1 of 120 (3412 views)
Shortcut
Argus ban discussion (Was Argus Ban List) Can't Post

EDIT: I moved this to it's own thread as the conversation has drifted away from the intent of the original thread. Please use this thread to discuss this issue and the other one for SB's and updates to the ban list.


Looks like they're claiming FOD* caused the failure according to the email I got this AM from Karel


*FOD: foriegn object damage. In this case a steel shot pellet.

Id post the rest, but am using my ifone.

Still doesnt excuse Aviacoms actions (or lack thereof)


(This post was edited by LouDiamond on May 1, 2011, 4:16 PM)


IanHarrop  (C 1152)

Apr 14, 2011, 5:10 AM
Post #2 of 120 (3382 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Coreefdiver] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

FOD
http://tools.emailgarage.com/...;MessageId=509493423


rhys  (D 95)

Apr 14, 2011, 5:59 AM
Post #3 of 120 (3347 views)
Shortcut
Re: [IanHarrop] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

So all this Argus bashing for nothing...

When's that list going to be ammended do you think?


rhys  (D 95)

Apr 14, 2011, 6:21 AM
Post #4 of 120 (3330 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Coreefdiver] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Still doesnt excuse Aviacoms actions (or lack thereof)

They said that they wished to investigate, and that the evidence was being witheld from them.

They we subsequnetly banned from a series of major rig manufactureres and parachute associations all based on the result an anomaly that was no fault of the unit itself, what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Plenty of knee jerking going on though...

How do you suppose they did wrong, they were as in the dark about it as any of us until any sort of open investigation.


(This post was edited by rhys on Apr 14, 2011, 6:24 AM)


Coreefdiver  (D 15287)

Apr 14, 2011, 6:40 AM
Post #5 of 120 (3309 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhys] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

how about a history of the same 'malf' happening and then factor in the way that Aviacom handled things.

"bans" = precaution based on history and then available facts

Aviacoms actions through the whole mess, going back to at least the Poland incident = unacceptable and unprofessional


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Apr 14, 2011, 6:42 AM
Post #6 of 120 (3305 views)
Shortcut
Re: [IanHarrop] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Lead shot is very soft, I would have expected the cutter to just cut through it with no issue at all. I do not even see damage to the shot ball in these photos. To me that is a concern if the cutter was able to get damaged by one of the softer materials out there.


sundevil777  (D License)

Apr 14, 2011, 6:46 AM
Post #7 of 120 (3301 views)
Shortcut
Re: [IanHarrop] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post


There should have been some detail pic/close up of the steel shot ball


IanHarrop  (C 1152)

Apr 14, 2011, 6:49 AM
Post #8 of 120 (3428 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Lead shot is very soft, I would have expected the cutter to just cut through it with no issue at all. I do not even see damage to the shot ball in these photos. To me that is a concern if the cutter was able to get damaged by one of the softer materials out there.

Yup lead is soft, but close reading of the report says its a steel ball.
"This looks like a small steel ball, as used in Ďshot bagsí"
"Picture 6:steel ball"




Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Apr 14, 2011, 6:59 AM
Post #10 of 120 (3417 views)
Shortcut
Re: [IanHarrop] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't know of anyone that uses steel balls in shot bags. Steel rusts unless its stainless or treated and the last thing you want to be putting into a rig is rust dust. Lead shot is typically used in shotbags around here. Lead is much more dense and does not rust.

More details on the FOD should be provided to help clarify the issue.




rhys  (D 95)

Apr 14, 2011, 7:03 AM
Post #12 of 120 (3410 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I don't know of anyone that uses steel balls in shot bags. Steel rusts unless its stainless or treated and the last thing you want to be putting into a rig is rust dust. Lead shot is typically used in shotbags around here. Lead is much more dense and does not rust.

the word 'like' was there, i thought of lead shot too when i read that.

any small bearing could be transferred onto the packing mat from someones shoe or any of a number of possibilities, but that is moot.

The fact is that there was a metal foreign object in the cutter and that is possible with all cutters from all manufacturers.


NovaTTT  (D 17887)

Apr 14, 2011, 7:04 AM
Post #13 of 120 (3419 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I do not even see damage to the shot ball in these photos.

I'm not saying it is not a lead shot ball, but they labeled the image "steel" and in the report say it "looks like a small steel ball".

This is a very interesting report, but it is still lacking. I also would like to see close images of the shot ball as well as a determination if it is actually steel.

I'm also curious how this relates to the other cutter-related incidents.


piisfish

Apr 14, 2011, 7:14 AM
Post #14 of 120 (3404 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Lead shot is very soft, I would have expected the cutter to just cut through it with no issue at all. I do not even see damage to the shot ball in these photos. To me that is a concern if the cutter was able to get damaged by one of the softer materials out there.
looks too shiny and perfect to be lead. Could be some plated heavy metal (like I have in some of my weights)


(This post was edited by piisfish on Apr 14, 2011, 7:23 AM)


pchapman  (D 1014)

Apr 14, 2011, 7:34 AM
Post #15 of 120 (3378 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post


The .ashx file didn't open up for me except in Visual Studio... which showed its just a pdf. So for anyone with problems viewing it, just rename the extension.


dgermano  (D License)

Apr 14, 2011, 7:54 AM
Post #16 of 120 (3364 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Start adding foreign objects to the equation and you have no basis to expect anything to happen like it should under circumstances. It could have just deflected the cutter and wasted energy the system would normally use to cut the loop. Who knows, but the real question is why was the steel shot in there?


sundevil777  (D License)

Apr 14, 2011, 8:06 AM
Post #17 of 120 (3343 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NovaTTT] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
This is a very interesting report, but it is still lacking.

As a report it does not inspire confidence. Lousy, out of focus pictures, no detailed picture or investigation of what is of obvious interest (the ball),


Unstable  (D 28930)

Apr 14, 2011, 8:20 AM
Post #18 of 120 (3326 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I don't know of anyone that uses steel balls in shot bags. Steel rusts unless its stainless or treated and the last thing you want to be putting into a rig is rust dust.

I agree that using steel balls is not the best idea, but given the price of lead shoot, and the current restrictions many places put on lead shot (hunting waterfowl) ~ it would SEEM like a logical choice to use. I actually use stainless stell ball berrings ~ they don't rust, but the principle for using them instead of lead is clear.


NovaTTT  (D 17887)

Apr 14, 2011, 8:22 AM
Post #19 of 120 (3324 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
There should have been some detail pic/close up of the steel shot ball

That's part of what is missing, but not the whole.

One wonders, for example, can the shot ball be exclusively traced back to the cutter head prior to the incident? or is it post-incident handling transfer?

Like many, I'll continue watching to see how this continues to unfold.


irishrigger  (D 297)

Apr 14, 2011, 8:24 AM
Post #20 of 120 (3318 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

this is a strange one,i would also expect some marking on the little ball.unfortunatley there is no other pics of this forgeign object. i find it a bit strange,they have lots of pics of the cutter and other cutter and the damaged it caused to the cutter, and just one pic of this foreign object which is not very good picture.
also raises the question of how this object got caught up in the cutter in the first place and that it stayed there.


Skybear

Apr 14, 2011, 8:29 AM
Post #21 of 120 (3314 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

How can an object like this enter the cutter? On a Cypres cutter there is a plastic insert that prevents anything from getting into the cutter. Is it the same on the Argus cutter? I suppose it is the same, because both are waterproof and therefore the cutter must be closed at the loop hole. And I can hardly imagine that a shot ball gets and stays in the loop hole just by coincidence. Did it maybe happen during the production and the shot ball was inside the cutter all the time? This report raises more questions than it answers.


piisfish

Apr 14, 2011, 8:33 AM
Post #22 of 120 (3306 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skybear] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
How can an object like this enter the cutter? On a Cypres cutter there is a plastic insert that prevents anything from getting into the cutter. Is it the same on the Argus cutter? I suppose it is the same, because both are waterproof and therefore the cutter must be closed at the loop hole. And I can hardly imagine that a shot ball gets and stays in the loop hole just by coincidence. Did it maybe happen during the production and the shot ball was inside the cutter all the time? This report raises more questions than it answers.
imagine putting packing weights on the rig to let the packjob compress a bit before closing it.The Cypres temp pin (pointy both ends) ponches a small hole in teh packing weigt, and a ball escapes and fall, bad luck, just through the grommets, inside the cutter, and is blocked in there by the loop. Et Voila.


Divalent  (C 40494)

Apr 14, 2011, 8:50 AM
Post #23 of 120 (3301 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NovaTTT] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

(Not to NovaTTT in particular)

There were indications in the original report of this incident that raised questions about the maintanence of this rig. IIRC, the loop was not siliconized, there was the suggestion that the packing log was (or would be) altered, and the rigger may have been refusing to cooperate with those investigating.


(This post was edited by Divalent on Apr 14, 2011, 8:55 AM)


Sabre1Lucke  (D License)

Apr 14, 2011, 9:25 AM
Post #24 of 120 (3267 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skybear] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

When installing the AAD or during the last repack it should be noticed by the rigger.
Espacially when you put the loop thru the opening of the cutter.
This in combination with the indications in the original report of this incident that raised questions about the maintanence of this rig.

They should remove the ban.

Here you can see the cutter of Argus:
http://www.chutingstar.com/...gus-1-pin-cutter.jpg


(This post was edited by Sabre1Lucke on Apr 14, 2011, 9:28 AM)


Skybear

Apr 14, 2011, 10:40 AM
Post #25 of 120 (3200 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Sabre1Lucke] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

I know how the cutter looks like. This picture is of bad quality and it is taken from an angle that does not show what I was asking for. Is there a plastic sleeve inside the loop hole, which prevents objects from going into the cutter tube (or how you would call it in the english language)?

If you have a better picture I would appreciate to see it.

Another thing that is worth mentioning is, that Skysupplieseurope and Mr. Camfferman is closely related to Argus. In my opinion to close for an independent investigation.


Sabre1Lucke  (D License)

Apr 14, 2011, 10:53 AM
Post #26 of 120 (1073 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skybear] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm not going to open my reserve to take a picture of the cutterWink

Is this better?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmNhTEnp0LQ
and
http://www.youtube.com/...&feature=related


(This post was edited by Sabre1Lucke on Apr 14, 2011, 10:57 AM)


Thedivingdog  (A License)

Apr 14, 2011, 11:07 AM
Post #27 of 120 (1050 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Sabre1Lucke] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Can anyone with more experience than I make an educated guess as to what might happen regarding the argus ban? Is this enough to reverse the ban? Was the ban issued prematurely? If the ban is reversed, are we talking weeks, months, years?


likestojump  (D License)

Apr 14, 2011, 11:08 AM
Post #28 of 120 (1048 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skybear] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

better pics
Attachments: IMG_2834.JPG (98.1 KB)
  IMG_2827.JPG (116 KB)
  IMG_2828.JPG (107 KB)


Skybear

Apr 14, 2011, 11:28 AM
Post #29 of 120 (1024 views)
Shortcut
Re: [likestojump] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Thank you Paul. This picture clearly shows a design flaw of the cutter which can easily be changed. As I suspected the loop hole is open towards the inside of the cutter. Small objects can easily enter the cutter and be in the way of the piston.

Another point about the cutter investigation report from April 7th 2011. This is ot the cutter from the San Marcos incident. The pictures clearly show the same serial number that was already in the Service Bulletin of September 5th 2011, following the Portugal incident. When Argus was banned they were still complaining that they did not receive the cutter from San Marcos.


MakeItHappen

Apr 14, 2011, 11:51 AM
Post #30 of 120 (990 views)
Shortcut
Re: [likestojump] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
better pics

Would it be possible for you to post similar pics of a CYPRES & Vigil?

Thanks

.


Skybear

Apr 14, 2011, 11:54 AM
Post #31 of 120 (983 views)
Shortcut
Re: [likestojump] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

I must admit that I made a mistake on the serial number, or better said a misunderstanding. Pauls pictures show the same serial number than in in all the reports. So maybe it is a part number, as somebody else suggested. The last report from Mr. Camffermann states that it is a serial number. But in my understanding a serial number is unique with each unit, isn't it? Does somebody know a little more about it?


jurgencamps  (D License)

Apr 14, 2011, 11:57 AM
Post #32 of 120 (974 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skybear] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Another point about the cutter investigation report from April 7th 2011. This is ot the cutter from the San Marcos incident. The pictures clearly show the same serial number that was already in the Service Bulletin of September 5th 2011, following the Portugal incident. When Argus was banned they were still complaining that they did not receive the cutter from San Marcos.

Strange. Can you show us that picture?


likestojump  (D License)

Apr 14, 2011, 12:05 PM
Post #33 of 120 (1814 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Cypres2 cutter
Attachments: IMG_2841.JPG (86.5 KB)
  IMG_2846.JPG (78.2 KB)
  IMG_2844.JPG (125 KB)


likestojump  (D License)

Apr 14, 2011, 12:07 PM
Post #34 of 120 (1810 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
better pics

Would it be possible for you to post similar pics of a CYPRES & Vigil?

Thanks

.

I don't have any Vigils in stock, so these are archive pics

also this is a good reference : http://www.vigil.aero/..._-_Vigil_Cutters.pdf
Attachments: type1-cutter.JPG (215 KB)
  type1-cutter (2).JPG (134 KB)
  Type3-cutter.JPG (55.4 KB)
  type3-cutter (2).JPG (206 KB)


Skybear

Apr 14, 2011, 12:08 PM
Post #35 of 120 (1806 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jurgencamps] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes I can Smile (always wanted to say this)

Just look into this document:

http://www.pia.com/...LLETIN%20Revised.pdf


likestojump  (D License)

Apr 14, 2011, 12:11 PM
Post #36 of 120 (1803 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skybear] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I must admit that I made a mistake on the serial number, or better said a misunderstanding. Pauls pictures show the same serial number than in in all the reports. So maybe it is a part number, as somebody else suggested. The last report from Mr. Camffermann states that it is a serial number. But in my understanding a serial number is unique with each unit, isn't it? Does somebody know a little more about it?

I have another cutter here, and it's stamped :

092666
118A/08
MAR 2008

so my guess is that 092666 is a PART NUMBER, and not a SN


RiggerLee

Apr 14, 2011, 12:36 PM
Post #37 of 120 (1769 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Sabre1Lucke] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

 
In regards to to videos posted. That all looks very nice. So, What's the real story on min loop tention? I've always heard that it required a min of x number of pounds, etc. And as I recall that was the excuse you used in one of the events, the student that rode down leaning against the bulkhead. So was that just a defective cutter? Are they inconsistant? Is this a QC issue? You show examples of successfull fireings but how many failed? It would be nice if you published a comprehensive report of the statistics of your study rather then just the wins. Or if you had no failures, great! Congrats! Then please explain to of the student incedent.

Lee


Sabre1Lucke  (D License)

Apr 14, 2011, 1:30 PM
Post #38 of 120 (1709 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RiggerLee] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Video's are on youtube Wink
Not from myself.

I only have an Argus in my rig Unsure

My previous AAD was a Vigil2. Also with this AAD the cutter had to be replaced by the one with plastic housing due to a service bulletin (read problems with the productionprocess of the cutter)


(This post was edited by Sabre1Lucke on Apr 14, 2011, 1:40 PM)


mark  (D 6108)

Apr 14, 2011, 3:24 PM
Post #39 of 120 (1634 views)
Shortcut
Re: Steel ball size [In reply to] Can't Post

What is the cylindrical object in the photo of the steel ball? What is the (estimated) diameter of the steel ball?

Mark


GobbleGobble  (D 32887)

Apr 14, 2011, 3:33 PM
Post #40 of 120 (1625 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mark] Steel ball size [In reply to] Can't Post

It looks to be the cutter. The actual piston that shoots down the metal tube to cut the loop.


mark  (D 6108)

Apr 14, 2011, 3:38 PM
Post #41 of 120 (1633 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GobbleGobble] Steel ball size [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It looks to be the cutter. The actual piston that shoots down the metal tube to cut the loop.

Can we use the cutter size to estimate the ball size? Is there optical distortion that would cause the ball to appear larger or smaller than it actually is in proportion to the cutter?

Mark


MakeItHappen

Apr 14, 2011, 3:49 PM
Post #42 of 120 (1623 views)
Shortcut
Re: [likestojump] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for the photos.

.


GobbleGobble  (D 32887)

Apr 14, 2011, 3:54 PM
Post #43 of 120 (1628 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mark] Steel ball size [In reply to] Can't Post

Without a known reference object I don't know that you could. I don't know that you couldn't either. Anyone have the diameter of the whole assembly in mm? As a guess I'd say the pellet is 2-3mm. That is a total WAG though.


johnmatrix  (D 9999)

Apr 14, 2011, 4:51 PM
Post #44 of 120 (1600 views)
Shortcut
Re: Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Not sure if this has been posted already but it has another pic of the 'shot ball'.

http://para-concepts.com/AADs/Issues.pdf


nigel99  (D 1)

Apr 15, 2011, 4:34 AM
Post #45 of 120 (1463 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

There should have been some detail pic/close up of the steel shot ball

I am curious. Is testing carried out by an independent third party or the manufacturer? I am not suggesting that Argus aren't telling the truth - just that 3rd party testing and investigation tends to have more credibility and it is something that they desperately need if they are going to survive.

The inquisitive side of me would also like to see close ups of the ball to see if it was damaged by the cutter.

It takes balls to jump an ArgusLaugh


theonlyski  (D License)

Apr 15, 2011, 4:35 AM
Post #46 of 120 (1463 views)
Shortcut
Re: [likestojump] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I must admit that I made a mistake on the serial number, or better said a misunderstanding. Pauls pictures show the same serial number than in in all the reports. So maybe it is a part number, as somebody else suggested. The last report from Mr. Camffermann states that it is a serial number. But in my understanding a serial number is unique with each unit, isn't it? Does somebody know a little more about it?

I have another cutter here, and it's stamped :

092666
118A/08
MAR 2008

so my guess is that 092666 is a PART NUMBER, and not a SN

+1 Mine has the same part number on it.


jb88ci  (B License)

Apr 15, 2011, 6:19 AM
Post #47 of 120 (1414 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skybear] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Thank you Paul. This picture clearly shows a design flaw of the cutter which can easily be changed. As I suspected the loop hole is open towards the inside of the cutter. Small objects can easily enter the cutter and be in the way of the piston.

I work in the aviation industry. We don't consider jet engine intakes design flaws because FOD can enter them, or props flawed in design because they can stir up gravel which will FOD them or access areas to control cables faulty because a mechanic can leave FOD in them to jam controls.

We consider our practices and poor housekeeping faulty. We use double checks, tool control etc to prevent FOD, not wrap airplanes in plastic to prevent it.

I'd say, if this was indeed a shot ball from a weight bag, this is poor housekeeping and poor FOD control if its possible for shot to come out of the bag. I'd say this is akin to leaving a temporary pin inside the pack job.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Apr 15, 2011, 7:23 AM
Post #48 of 120 (1364 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jb88ci] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I work in the aviation industry. We don't consider jet engine intakes design flaws because FOD can enter them, or props flawed in design because they can stir up gravel which will FOD them or access areas to control cables faulty because a mechanic can leave FOD in them to jam controls.

Intakes and props, for obvious reasons, need to be exposed to the outside atmospere. Access panels need to provide access for service and inspection.

The inner workings of a cutter require neither access to the outside atmospere nor be available for inspection and/or service after leaving the factory.

While I am not convinced that the shot ball could not have fouled the cutter even if a plastic insert was used, I am convinced that your comparison is flawed, and does not apply to this situation.


pchapman  (D 1014)

Apr 15, 2011, 8:35 AM
Post #49 of 120 (1327 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jb88ci] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Hang on -

Does the Argus have a plastic sleeve insert inside the cutter or not?


It sort of looks like it doesn't?
Cypres and Vigil have sleeves. For the Vigil that uses a circular cutter too, the sleeve reduces the chance that an object would nestle inside the cup, somewhat trapped by the loop and at least somewhat out of sight. An object could still jam in the cutter, but it becomes less likely.

So one could call it a "flaw" if the Argus does not have the plastic, although it might be better to say it is just a less refined design given that the apparent FOD issue is so extremely rare.

One finds carpet fluff and bits of grass in reserve containers, but I haven't ever had to shake out shot from other's packing aids.


Skybear

Apr 15, 2011, 9:29 AM
Post #50 of 120 (1292 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jb88ci] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I work in the aviation industry. We don't consider jet engine intakes design flaws because FOD can enter them, or props flawed in design because they can stir up gravel which will FOD them or access areas to control cables faulty because a mechanic can leave FOD in them to jam controls.

We consider our practices and poor housekeeping faulty. We use double checks, tool control etc to prevent FOD, not wrap airplanes in plastic to prevent it.

I'd say, if this was indeed a shot ball from a weight bag, this is poor housekeeping and poor FOD control if its possible for shot to come out of the bag. I'd say this is akin to leaving a temporary pin inside the pack job.

I work in the aviation industry as well. I am an air traffic controller, air traffic control instructor and human factors expert. From a long lasting experience and studies I know, that every procedure will work in a perfect world, no matter how bad it is designed. But as soon as you put the human in the system, it will fail at some point. That 's natural because of human behaviour. Good engineering takes this into account. Why let the cutter open, so that FODs can nestle inside the tubular part of the cutter, when you can also close it with a plastic sleeve?

Humans are packing our reserves, and they may overlook a small metal ball falling into the cutter. If it falls in the loop hole most propably it will fall through. Or it will be stuck between the loop and the plastic sleeve of a Cypres/Vigil cutter and can be found when inspected again. But if it already rolled inside the Argus cutter it is most propably out of sight.

If FODs turn out to be the problem in all the Argus cutter incidents then we know why. If there are more problems with the cutters we need to fnid more solutions.


(This post was edited by Skybear on Apr 15, 2011, 9:30 AM)


Sabre1Lucke  (D License)

Apr 18, 2011, 11:10 AM
Post #51 of 120 (1859 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skybear] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Any news about the Argus ban?
Since the ban was so sudden... I would expect that PIA would inform skydiver with an Argus since they are on the ground at the moment.

So please, is there any more info yet?


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Apr 18, 2011, 11:50 AM
Post #52 of 120 (1834 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Sabre1Lucke] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

PIA did not push the ban, its members made the decision on each of their own rigs. Each rig maker will need to evaluate the evidence to see if they feel its enough to revoke the ban or if they need additional info/testing before they will do that.


Sabre1Lucke  (D License)

Apr 18, 2011, 12:07 PM
Post #53 of 120 (1838 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
PIA did not push the ban, its members made the decision on each of their own rigs. Each rig maker will need to evaluate the evidence to see if they feel its enough to revoke the ban or if they need additional info/testing before they will do that.
Thanks!


JCulver  (A 55781)

Apr 18, 2011, 3:41 PM
Post #54 of 120 (1787 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Sabre1Lucke] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Any news about the Argus ban?
Since the ban was so sudden... I would expect that PIA would inform skydiver with an Argus since they are on the ground at the moment.

So please, is there any more info yet?

Kinda sitting here twiddling my thumbs at the moment too. I'm due for a repack. Not sure if I'm going to pull it and start jumping again, or sit on it for a couple more weeks and see where this thing goes.


Coreefdiver  (D 15287)

Apr 18, 2011, 5:10 PM
Post #55 of 120 (1761 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JCulver] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

they shoulda just said to not power 'em up and remove at next repack so people were not hosed even further


Unstable  (D 28930)

Apr 18, 2011, 5:10 PM
Post #56 of 120 (1761 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JCulver] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Kinda sitting here twiddling my thumbs at the moment too. I'm due for a repack. Not sure if I'm going to pull it and start jumping again, or sit on it for a couple more weeks and see where this thing goes.

I am keeping mine in (Racer, not banned) but I have a lot of folks at the DZ with Argus units in their dresser drawers. If anything, I'm surprised Sunpath hasn't removed the ban, given the location of the cutter....


tazsz  (C License)

Apr 19, 2011, 12:55 AM
Post #57 of 120 (1690 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Unstable] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

I now begin to believe the claim from Argus against the PIA.
The ban on the Argus, as it looks by now, was put on easy without to much investigation. But now that the facts aren't so clear against Aviacom they refuse to lift the ban because they want to closely look at it?
It al begins to look a bit dirty. Looks like PIA is measuring in there own benefits


Sabre1Lucke  (D License)

Apr 19, 2011, 1:11 AM
Post #58 of 120 (2472 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Unstable] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Argus is not banned in my rig, but Argus is banned in Belgium and the Netherlands wich makes it even more difficult Crazy


tazsz  (C License)

Apr 19, 2011, 2:06 AM
Post #59 of 120 (2462 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Sabre1Lucke] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

I know, I also have to deal with that.
I'm not far from the point that I will take my lost and let Cypress win.
I had it with this AAD soap.
I'm not in the industry nor a rigger, I can't decide who is right or wrong, I just wanna jump and have fun. I don't need this


sundevil777  (D License)

Apr 19, 2011, 3:54 AM
Post #60 of 120 (2433 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tazsz] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

It seems strange to me that we still haven't seen close up examination of that little ball.


mark  (D 6108)

Apr 19, 2011, 5:46 AM
Post #61 of 120 (2406 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tazsz] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I now begin to believe the claim from Argus against the PIA.
The ban on the Argus, as it looks by now, was put on easy without to much investigation. But now that the facts aren't so clear against Aviacom they refuse to lift the ban because they want to closely look at it?
It al begins to look a bit dirty. Looks like PIA is measuring in there own benefits

PIA did not ban Argus. PIA cannot lift a ban they did not (and could not) impose.

Individual harness/container manufacturers disallowed Argus in their rigs. If you want to put an Argus in your rig, talk to the manufacturer of your rig.

What is disappointing is that Aviacom has not been more forthcoming with their investigation. They need to demonstrate how exactly how the steel ball interfered with the cutter. The best way to do that is to duplicate the cutter malfunction.

Mark


Donotbounce  (B 34365)

Apr 19, 2011, 6:58 AM
Post #62 of 120 (2384 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mark] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

I was in contact with Aerodyne on another issue with my rig, once that was resolved, i inquired about them lifting the Argus ban in light of the results of the investigation. I was annoyed to say the least at their lack of response to my inquiry. On the other issue, they responded to my emails within a few hours. On my Argus question, it has been 5 days now with no response.

In the interim, I wish they would allow people to leave them in their rigs and turned off until this is resolved. I had my repack 1 week before this started and if I want to jump, I have to rent a rig or remove the Unit. But, I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir.


pchapman  (D 1014)

Apr 19, 2011, 7:12 AM
Post #63 of 120 (2378 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Donotbounce] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In the interim, I wish they would allow people to leave them in their rigs and turned off until this is resolved.

Take the control head, put it in a small plastic bag, wrap it tightly with tape, and tuck it away somewhere on your rig, hidden in the backpad or whatever.

A look at the AAD control head window will show nothing. AAD? What AAD? All you've got is a hunk of metal in your rig, nothing that you can turn on to act as any sort of automatic activation device.

The FAA / DZ / rig companies might always disagree, but it is one avenue one can try.

Yeah I know, not many will like that idea, but it is one way of giving the finger to a lot of people while still complying fully with the the safety precautions implied by all the service bulletins -- to not create a hazard that might be caused by faulty cutting of the loop.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 19, 2011, 8:52 AM
Post #64 of 120 (2324 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Donotbounce] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

>I wish they would allow people to leave them in their rigs and turned off until this is resolved.

So do that (after you inspect it and are 100% sure the cutter hasn't fired and jammed your rig closed.) There are no "Sunpath police" that will come and confiscate your rig. Riggers may not repack it the next time it needs a repack, but that's different than not allowing you to jump it. Only a DZO can decide that he doesn't want you jumping your (in-date) rig on his airplanes.


tazsz  (C License)

Apr 19, 2011, 3:20 PM
Post #65 of 120 (2249 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mark] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I now begin to believe the claim from Argus against the PIA.
The ban on the Argus, as it looks by now, was put on easy without to much investigation. But now that the facts aren't so clear against Aviacom they refuse to lift the ban because they want to closely look at it?
It al begins to look a bit dirty. Looks like PIA is measuring in there own benefits

PIA did not ban Argus. PIA cannot lift a ban they did not (and could not) impose.

Individual harness/container manufacturers disallowed Argus in their rigs. If you want to put an Argus in your rig, talk to the manufacturer of your rig.

What is disappointing is that Aviacom has not been more forthcoming with their investigation. They need to demonstrate how exactly how the steel ball interfered with the cutter. The best way to do that is to duplicate the cutter malfunction.

Mark

Your right about that
And yes, Aviacoms actions or the lack of it are disappointing. In there efforts to proof they have to do nothing they totally forget about there customers but so are some of the manufacturers of rigs. If they are so concerned of our safety why did they approved it in the first place and react on information that had no independent investigation.
Lifting the ban now would be in the same line as putting a ban on it without proper information
By now no one knows what to believe, but we still are grounded. No AAD is no option in Belgian, they are mandatory


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Apr 19, 2011, 7:21 PM
Post #66 of 120 (2207 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tazsz] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Can we take parts of this conversation to a new thread and keep this thread focused on the list of rigs/countries that currently have taken a stance either for or against having the Argus installed?


Premier LouDiamond  (D 25931)
Moderator
May 1, 2011, 4:17 PM
Post #67 of 120 (1316 views)
Shortcut
Re: Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

I moved this to it's own thread as the conversation has drifted away from the intent of the original thread. Please use this thread to discuss this issue and the other one for SB's and updates to the ban list.






holie  (A License)

May 6, 2011, 2:12 AM
Post #70 of 120 (994 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LouDiamond] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi all,

are there any new ideas round there?
Any reaction of the rig manufacturers?
Any of Aviacom?
Any of PIA?

Anybody mentioned anything the last weeks?
Or do they just let their customer starve out hanging arount not jumping?

looking forward
Holger


tazsz  (C License)

May 6, 2011, 2:34 AM
Post #71 of 120 (993 views)
Shortcut
Re: [holie] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

I wonder how many people still jump there Argus switched on. I started doing that sinds it looks like it doesn't have any priority anymore.
Not for Aviacom,PIA or even the Dz's. So if no one looks what kind of AAD I use I'll keep on doing this till my next repack. Imo this is safer then jumping without one. If no one takes us serious why should I take them serious


(This post was edited by tazsz on May 6, 2011, 2:42 AM)


kalaniwavo  (B License)

May 6, 2011, 1:00 PM
Post #72 of 120 (893 views)
Shortcut
Re: [holie] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

exactly, seems like everyone involved (PIA,Argus,manufacturers) has been extremely quiet lately. I wonder what, if anything, is going on behind the scenes. Are we waiting on an investigation? Are we waiting on a cutter redesign? what's going on to resolve the dispute between Argus and the PIA? or is this it....?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 6, 2011, 1:20 PM
Post #73 of 120 (879 views)
Shortcut
Re: [holie] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

>Anybody mentioned anything the last weeks?

PIA just released a pretty comprehensive overview of the issue. Check out the "Argus ban list" thread at the top of the forum. It lists the four incidents that led to some manufacturer's decisions.


rhys  (D 95)

May 6, 2011, 1:36 PM
Post #74 of 120 (870 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Kirk smith relesed his report well before that, you moderators were issued that report aksed to post it so it came from a neutral source and failed to post it.

People talk (thats why I know about it).

Kirks report is mentioned and linked in this latest report. But why was kirk smiths report not posted when you were in posession of it for the last few days?

Did you not like his conclusons?

You have warned me about my tone in my posts, but there is no vicious tone here, just a question.

An important one.


(This post was edited by rhys on May 6, 2011, 1:40 PM)


Premier LouDiamond  (D 25931)
Moderator
May 6, 2011, 2:14 PM
Post #75 of 120 (835 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhys] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Kirk smith relesed his report well before that, you moderators were issued that report aksed to post it so it came from a neutral source and failed to post it.

People talk (thats why I know about it).

Kirks report is mentioned and linked in this latest report. But why was kirk smiths report not posted when you were in posession of it for the last few days?

Did you not like his conclusons?

You have warned me about my tone in my posts, but there is no vicious tone here, just a question.

An important one.


The person that brought it to my attention was directed to post it here in this unlocked thread several days ago but never did so. Contact them and ask why they did not post it here. It was not posted in the locked "ARGUS ban list" thread because that thread was created to serve as a sole source where people could find information on which H/C manufacturers, and or governing bodies are currently banning the ARGUS. Which is what I explained to the person who brought it to my attention.


mark  (D 6108)

May 6, 2011, 2:29 PM
Post #76 of 120 (1319 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhys] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Kirk Smith released his report well before that, you moderators were issued that report asked to post it so it came from a neutral source and failed to post it.

People talk (that's why I know about it).

Kirks report is mentioned and linked in this latest report. But why was kirk smiths report not posted when you were in possession of it for the last few days?

Did you not like his conclusions?

You have warned me about my tone in my posts, but there is no vicious tone here, just a question.

An important one.

Do you mean the report he did on the San Marcos incident specifically? It's been up on the PIA website for about a month:
http://www.pia.com/...arcosPreliminary.pdf

Mark


tazsz  (C License)

May 6, 2011, 3:39 PM
Post #77 of 120 (1302 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mark] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm just a client, I payed all those people to make this work. I don't care about there politics. I don't know what is wrong with cutters or rigs, I don't have to, I pay those people for it. My conclusion is that they don't deliver what they promised me, and that involves aviacom and in my case UPT. They all told me this combination would work. And by now there is a problem and no one takes there responsibility. IMO this is to blame theme all.
And please don't tell me it's all to blame at my "el cheapo" AAD specially not if you have a sponsorship with a different brand


(This post was edited by tazsz on May 6, 2011, 3:41 PM)


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
May 6, 2011, 4:08 PM
Post #78 of 120 (1291 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tazsz] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

UPT never signed off on anything. They gave an implied approval since it was not explicitly prohibited but they never have came out and specifically said "Yes" to each AAD.


wolfriverjoe  (A 50013)

May 6, 2011, 4:15 PM
Post #79 of 120 (1289 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhys] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Kirk smith relesed his report well before that, you moderators were issued that report aksed to post it so it came from a neutral source and failed to post it.

People talk (thats why I know about it).

Kirks report is mentioned and linked in this latest report. But why was kirk smiths report not posted when you were in posession of it for the last few days?

Did you not like his conclusons?

You have warned me about my tone in my posts, but there is no vicious tone here, just a question.

An important one.

Kirk's report was on here. I read it, and this is the only place I've been reading. I don't know what thread it was in, and it may have been "downstream deleted" in all the pointless bickering that has been going on.

But it either is or was on here a couple weeks ago.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

May 6, 2011, 4:39 PM
Post #80 of 120 (1275 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
UPT never signed off on anything. They gave an implied approval since it was not explicitly prohibited but they never have came out and specifically said "Yes" to each AAD.

But they did approve the use of Argus in their rigs.

Sparky

I am not sure the link works. Here it is in text.


RELATIVE WORKSHOP inc
ENGINEERING
1645 Lexington Avenue .. DeLand FL 32724-2106 USA .. www.relativeworkshop.com
Telephone +1 386 736 7589 .. Fax +1 386 734 7537 .. mike@relativeworkshop.com

April 12, 2006

Argus

Karel Goorts
Leemveldstraat 42
3090 Overijse, Belglum

This letter is to certify that the Argus AAD is compatable with the Relitve Workshop Vector sport and tandem series containers.
Should you have any questions regarding the above, please contact me.

Best regards,
Mike Forsythe
Enginering Manager
the uninsured


(This post was edited by mjosparky on May 6, 2011, 4:45 PM)
Attachments: Vector.pdf (56.1 KB)


NovaTTT  (D 17887)

May 6, 2011, 4:39 PM
Post #81 of 120 (1300 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wolfriverjoe] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Making no claims, no associations and saying nothing about this report. Just posting this for the sake of completeness.

Kirk Smith San Marcos Report


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
May 6, 2011, 6:03 PM
Post #82 of 120 (1275 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

That letter I was not aware of. Thanks for it!


funfall  (C 1)

May 6, 2011, 8:40 PM
Post #83 of 120 (1243 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NovaTTT] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Making no claims, no associations and saying nothing about this report. Just posting this for the sake of completeness.

Kirk Smith San Marcos Preliminary Report

Here is a more recent article by Kirk Smith, dated April 26: http://www.para-concepts.com/AADs/Issues.pdf


(This post was edited by funfall on May 6, 2011, 8:52 PM)


rhys  (D 95)

May 6, 2011, 10:45 PM
Post #84 of 120 (1217 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LouDiamond] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The person that brought it to my attention was directed to post it here in this unlocked thread several days ago but never did so. Contact them and ask why they did not post it here. It was not posted in the locked "ARGUS ban list" thread because that thread was created to serve as a sole source where people could find information on which H/C manufacturers, and or governing bodies are currently banning the ARGUS. Which is what I explained to the person who brought it to my attention.

So you beleive kirks observations and his investigation serves no purpose in the issue of the manufacturer bullitens?

Did you request that the PIA post their article themselves also, or is their opinion worth more than kirks that you felt compelled to post theirs there and not kirks??

How do you feel about the possibilty of the flap grommets inhibiting the cutters stroke?

Do you feel that is a discussion and a point worth considering in all this?

He (kirk) in turn discovered a possibility that nobody else has come up with, it is a valid concern and something we should all get our heads around.

The reason I ask all this is that Kirk was asked specifically by Aviacom to carry out that investigation and that is part of what everybody has been waiting for. And has added more to ponder and more tesing to be conclusive of anything.

They will have to make a statement themselves obviously, that is the statement we are all waiting for in anticipation, lets see..

Ignoring Kirks report does not give us all a balanced view on the situation.


(This post was edited by rhys on May 6, 2011, 11:36 PM)


mjosparky  (D 5476)

May 7, 2011, 2:42 AM
Post #85 of 120 (1195 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhys] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The reason I ask all this is that Kirk was asked specifically by Aviacom to carry out that investigation and that is part of what everybody has been waiting for. And has added more to ponder and more tesing to be conclusive of anything.

Most riggers I know have already read through Kirkís report. I have been out just about a month. Actually there are to reports out by Mr. Smith. One it the preliminary report on the San Marcos incident and the other is a white paper he did on theories he had developed.

http://www.pia.com/...arcosPreliminary.pdf

http://www.para-concepts.com/AADs/Issues.pdf

While both reports are in my opinion good work and well done. But without some statement from Aviacom they are left sort of hanging by themselves. Remember that the problem in San Marcos is just one of four incidents. There are still the problems in Poland, Portugal and Italy that have yet to be addressed by Aviacom. Mr. Smithís reports failed to make any definitive conclusions but did raise some interesting questions that bear more study. Aviacom has dug themselves a pretty deep hole and by not publicly responding to an investigation report they commissioned doesnít help their position much now does it? They are the only ones that can make this go away.

Sparky


funfall  (C 1)

May 7, 2011, 4:44 AM
Post #86 of 120 (1175 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
But without some statement from Aviacom they are left sort of hanging by themselves. Remember that the problem in San Marcos is just one of four incidents. There are still the problems in Poland, Portugal and Italy that have yet to be addressed by Aviacom. Mr. Smithís reports failed to make any definitive conclusions but did raise some interesting questions that bear more study. Aviacom has dug themselves a pretty deep hole and by not publicly responding to an investigation report they commissioned doesnít help their position much now does it? They are the only ones that can make this go away.
Sparky

Actually, there is more public information available than has been posted or discussed here, including at least one letter from Kirk Smith regarding the other incidents, and detailed reports by Aviacom. I've read some of them, and found them very enlightening. Those officially involved in the San Marcos investigation have read them, but most others do not seem to have. They are a better source of information than some of the opinions/speculation posted here.

Sorry I don't have time to look up and post links this morning. Maybe later.


(This post was edited by funfall on May 7, 2011, 5:16 AM)


Premier LouDiamond  (D 25931)
Moderator
May 7, 2011, 9:55 AM
Post #87 of 120 (1120 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhys] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
The person that brought it to my attention was directed to post it here in this unlocked thread several days ago but never did so. Contact them and ask why they did not post it here. It was not posted in the locked "ARGUS ban list" thread because that thread was created to serve as a sole source where people could find information on which H/C manufacturers, and or governing bodies are currently banning the ARGUS. Which is what I explained to the person who brought it to my attention.

So you beleive kirks observations and his investigation serves no purpose in the issue of the manufacturer bullitens?

Did you request that the PIA post their article themselves also, or is their opinion worth more than kirks that you felt compelled to post theirs there and not kirks??

How do you feel about the possibilty of the flap grommets inhibiting the cutters stroke?

Do you feel that is a discussion and a point worth considering in all this?

He (kirk) in turn discovered a possibility that nobody else has come up with, it is a valid concern and something we should all get our heads around.

The reason I ask all this is that Kirk was asked specifically by Aviacom to carry out that investigation and that is part of what everybody has been waiting for. And has added more to ponder and more tesing to be conclusive of anything.

They will have to make a statement themselves obviously, that is the statement we are all waiting for in anticipation, lets see..

Ignoring Kirks report does not give us all a balanced view on the situation.


Once again, you are reading way more into it than there is here. The latest PIA announcement was at the behest of several H/C manufacturers, which as I stated earlier, is what the "Argus ban list" thread is for. I know Kirk and respect the work he has done on this however, as it has been pointed out, Kirk is not Avicom, he is a service rep and an independent rigging company. His latest report is open to the public on his website and the paper lists his business, not Avicom's on the front of the document. It is an information paper based on his research on the issue and as such belongs here in this thread. As I explained to the person who brought it to my attention, placing it in the locked thread would not allow people to discuss the findings of Kirk's report, another reason why it belongs in this thread, so people can read AND discuss the issues.

If you or anyone else has any information and or links that pertain to this topic that don't fall into the description and intent of the "Argus ban thread", you are free to post them here and discuss without having to contact any of the moderators, that is as unbiased and open as you can get. If every rigger out there decides to write his/her own white paper on the topic and you feel it is relevant to the issue, by all means, post a link to it and discuss.

Unfortunately, for the number of posts in this thread there is very little discussion about actual/suspected causes and or reasons and more noise being created that serves no fruitful purpose other than to create drama where there is none. I encourage everyone to participate in the discussion but I also ask that people focus on the mechanical issues here and less on the drama/politics so there is a better signal (information) to noise ratio than we currently have.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

May 7, 2011, 11:35 AM
Post #88 of 120 (1103 views)
Shortcut
Re: [funfall] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Sorry I don't have time to look up and post links this morning. Maybe later.

Thanks for the thought but I think I already have most of them. I have a folder with some 20 odd documents in it.

Sparky


rhys  (D 95)

May 7, 2011, 1:35 PM
Post #89 of 120 (1085 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LouDiamond] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Unfortunately, for the number of posts in this thread there is very little discussion about actual/suspected causes and or reasons and more noise being created that serves no fruitful purpose other than to create drama where there is none. I encourage everyone to participate in the discussion but I also ask that people focus on the mechanical issues here and less on the drama/politics so there is a better signal (information) to noise ratio than we currently have.

Considering you are the one that is moderating and deleting what you feel is inappropriate and posting what you feel is appropriate...

You are contributing to this 'Noise' by writng a reply that does not address the subject rsther the 'noise' you speak of and ignoring a question pertinant to the subject and the possible result.

I asked you what you thought of the hypothesis of the grommets interfereing with the cutters stroke for the exact reason to discuss the subject, that may or may not be a factor in this, but it seems quite plausable.

I am a PT which is similar to a senior rigger but not quite the same, I have closed a number of reserves and I can see how the grommets could be forced into the cavity of the cutter and obstruct the stroke.

You make it out as though kirks reports is irrelevant and simply some random rigger that came up with a random theory.

HE WAS ASKED SPECIFICALLY BY AVIACOM, to do so, he mentioned that, and you ignored it and brushed it off as irrelevant. Why do you no wish to discuss that.

kirks report will likely play a role in determining the outcome of Aviacoms reply to the industry.

Sparky also, if you have the documents and have read them,, why are you reluctant to discuss the possibility of the grommets inhibiting the cutters stroke and function?

it is importsnt for all AAD manufacturers to understand this concept, and all AAD users (especially riggers) to understand it also.

As kirk mentioned, with access to a multitude of cutters to experiement with, this failure could be reproduced.

If it was reproduced, it could be addressed with a sleeve or similar over the cutter.

I beleive the damage to either side of the cutter resembles tha damage I would imagine if two grommets were forced into the cavity while the cutter was fired.

Just sayin.

Why is that point not being addressed, if everybody is well aware of it?


(This post was edited by rhys on May 7, 2011, 1:38 PM)


theonlyski  (D License)

May 7, 2011, 2:28 PM
Post #90 of 120 (1066 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhys] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I beleive the damage to either side of the cutter resembles tha damage I would imagine if two grommets were forced into the cavity while the cutter was fired.

Just sayin.

Why is that point not being addressed, if everybody is well aware of it?

So you believe that the grommets themselves were what damaged the cutter blade?

Perhaps I need to pop open my container and look, but I don't think its possible that the grommets could come in contact with the actual blade, as they're too flat (the curve isn't extreme and is very wide), especially on the grommet side. The washer side, MAYBE, just MAYBE it could dig in deep enough, but again, I don't see how that's even possible with a fingertrapped cypres loop in the cutter... I'd LOVE to have you show us how its possible to jam a grommet installed on a flap, into the cutter with a cypres loop installed.

I believe the report you were talking about that said they could replicate the problem was not a problem of the loop not fully cutting, but rather tension holding the loop against a grommet and preventing it from sliding thru the other grommets and allowing the PC to launch. While this is possible, it is not the same as the loop possibly being jammed in the cutter and making reserve extraction potentially impossible by pulling the ripcord. If the loop is 'wedged' between the grommets, then pulling the ripcord could alleviate tension and allow the wedged portion of the loop to slide out.

I am a Senior Rigger (back and seat) with something like 35-40 I&R's on sport gear with AAD's; and I cannot see how you think that a grommet would be able to get wedged into the cutter. Locking the loop because it was too long, maybe, but that's irrelevant of the cutter, provided it fully and cleanly cut the loop.


(This post was edited by theonlyski on May 7, 2011, 2:55 PM)


rhys  (D 95)

May 7, 2011, 3:56 PM
Post #91 of 120 (1049 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So you believe that the grommets themselves were what damaged the cutter blade?

Perhaps I need to pop open my container and look, but I don't think its possible that the grommets could come in contact with the actual blade, as they're too flat (the curve isn't extreme and is very wide), especially on the grommet side. The washer side, MAYBE, just MAYBE it could dig in deep enough, but again, I don't see how that's even possible with a fingertrapped cypres loop in the cutter... I'd LOVE to have you show us how its possible to jam a grommet installed on a flap, into the cutter with a cypres loop installed.

So you did not read kirks reports then....

In reply to:
I am a Senior Rigger (back and seat) with something like 35-40 I&R's on sport gear with AAD's; and I cannot see how you think that a grommet would be able to get wedged into the cutter. Locking the loop because it was too long, maybe, but that's irrelevant of the cutter, provided it fully and cleanly cut the loop.

When I close a reserve there is much tention on the loop and the grommets are forced into place. The position of the grommets along with he closing loop "COULD" interfere with the cutters action depending on it's placement. The placement of the cutter is designated by the manufacturers I beleive?

When you pull the loop through with a closing tool, it is difficult to see the forces placed on the cutter as it is then obscured by the flaps. There are Photos and explanations in Kirks report, I suggest you read it and ingest it.

http://www.para-concepts.com/AADs/Issues.pdf


mjosparky  (D 5476)

May 7, 2011, 5:03 PM
Post #92 of 120 (1032 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhys] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
HE WAS ASKED SPECIFICALLY BY AVIACOM, to do so, he mentioned that, and you ignored it and brushed it off as irrelevant. Why do you no wish to discuss that.

Mr. Smith was asked to assist in the investigation of the San Marcos incident. This he did along with Jesus M Cavazos from the FAA, Eric Butts, Senior Parachute Rigger, Paula Hunt, Senior Parachute Rigger, Marcus Reed, Senior Parachute Rigger and Karel Goortz, Owner of Aviacom, by telephone for the first portion of the meeting. His report on this meeting revealed little useful information that was not already known. Aviacom has yet to comment on this report or do any follow up on what was discussed. In fact Mr. Goortz remains silent on a four of the incidents involving his AAD.

In reply to:
Sparky also, if you have the documents and have read them,, why are you reluctant to discuss the possibility of the grommets inhibiting the cutters stroke and function?

I am not reluctant at all. I played around with an old cutter and a rig with the same grommets in question. I feel that the grommets had nothing to do with neither the San Marcos incident nor the ones in Poland, Portugal or Italy. Itís an interesting theory but just one of several Mr. Smith mentioned in his second white paper on the issue. Donít get caught up in theories and possibility as fact. They are a long way from being proven.

In reply to:
As kirk mentioned, with access to a multitude of cutters to experiement with, this failure could be reproduced.

This is what he actually said. It seems you only see what you want to see which is dangerous when doing any investigation.
Quote:
I wish to state that these tests should not be considered statistically rigorous. I only had a small number of cutters available for testing, and more extensive tests should be conducted by Aviacom or independent testers. This falls short of a proof, but could be a very good working theory.

In reply to:
Why is that point not being addressed, if everybody is well aware of it?

Just because it is not being talked about on dz.com does not mean it is not being addressed. Aviacom is the one who needs to address several issues and has failed to do so to date. Quit looking for the boogey man under your mattress. It is Aviacomís move and everyone is waiting on them.

Sparky


funfall  (C 1)

May 7, 2011, 8:41 PM
Post #93 of 120 (999 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Sorry I don't have time to look up and post links this morning. Maybe later.

Thanks for the thought but I think I already have most of them. I have a folder with some 20 odd documents in it.

Sparky

That wasn't aimed at you, Sparky. I'd prefer to stay out of this debate, but hate to see it occurring in a vacuum. There's more information available to anyone who really cares.


(This post was edited by funfall on May 7, 2011, 9:10 PM)


rhys  (D 95)

May 8, 2011, 2:12 PM
Post #94 of 120 (909 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Just because it is not being talked about on dz.com does not mean it is not being addressed.

Ignoring something and brushing it off is the same as not addressing it.

This is supposed to be an information database, but everyone is reluctant to say anything anymore.

In reply to:
It is Aviacomís move and everyone is waiting on them.

agreed.


davelepka  (D 21448)

May 8, 2011, 5:13 PM
Post #95 of 120 (876 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhys] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
This is supposed to be an information database, but everyone is reluctant to say anything anymore.

Say anything you want. All of the warnings you got previously were for being too far off topic for a certain thread. I gave your solution then, and I'll remind you of it now, start a new thread.

The only things the mods do is keep things on track, and enforce the rules. They don't filter information, or choose what does or does not see the light of day. If you want some daylight on something, start a thread to that effect, and shine all the light on it you want.


rhys  (D 95)

May 8, 2011, 6:33 PM
Post #96 of 120 (851 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Remember that the problem in San Marcos is just one of four incidents. There are still the problems in Poland, Portugal and Italy that have yet to be addressed by Aviacom.

Doing a little reseach I easily came up with this;

PRELIMINARY ACCIDENT REPORT # 4 (Poland)

Though that says it is preliminary, it also says it is confidential.

It clearly shows a severed closing loop, and a quite evident rigging error with the reserve bridle, rather grousomely with the victim still in the harness...


or portugal.


INVESTIGATIVE REPORT (portugal)


Though not conclusive, to say these have not been addressed is not exactly correct.

The Italian incident is quite concerning, I was unaware of that one. A disection of that cutter would be interesting. Has that unit been investigated by anyone?


(This post was edited by rhys on May 8, 2011, 6:47 PM)


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
May 8, 2011, 6:57 PM
Post #97 of 120 (839 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhys] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In the Poland incident the closing loop is not cleanly cut like Argus says it should be and it is frayed on the end. The reserve bridle is not thought to be a rigging error but instead occurred on impact when the canopy and freebag was ejected from the container when the loop broke. The freebag was cleanly pulled off and the canopy does not show any signs of being exposed to a moving airstream. The bridle is also not under tension which would have occurred if the PC was in the airstream.

Read the reports on Italy, the DZ said they sent the unit to Argus and Argus says they never received it.


rhys  (D 95)

May 8, 2011, 7:09 PM
Post #98 of 120 (835 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In the Poland incident the closing loop is not cleanly cut like Argus says it should be and it is frayed on the end. The reserve bridle is not thought to be a rigging error but instead occurred on impact when the canopy and freebag was ejected from the container when the loop broke.

By looking at those pictures it looks to me as though the loop was in fact severed, the bridle was indeed under tention and I cannot see how the bridle and freebag could possibly be configured that way from popping open upon impact. Can you ellaborate on your position there?



In reply to:
Read the reports on Italy, the DZ said they sent the unit to Argus and Argus says they never received it.
What reports, can you provide me a url?


funfall  (C 1)

May 8, 2011, 8:51 PM
Post #99 of 120 (809 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhys] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for posting those. Those docs (or a version of them), and some others, are also available at Aviacom's Argus website:
http://www.argus-aad.com

Note that Kirk Smith's letter to Aviacom regarding his conclusions from the Polish investigation and subsequent testing are included at the end of the Polish report.

Regarding questions about the Italian incident: I can't find the source right now, but I've seen it mentioned that the Italian Argus was supposedly mailed to Aviacom, but never received. The sender could offer no evidence that he sent it. Does anyone here know more than that? If that's all we have to go on, come to your own conclusions.

I'll share this for the benefit of those who are hanging on to their Argus: From recent personal conversations with people who are close to the San Marcos investigation, and the current negotiations between Aviacom, US H/C manufacturers, and the FAA, the consensus is that the Argus bans will be lifted, at least for sport rigs. How soon is the big question. A week or two seems to be the best case scenario, but there are legal issues that might draw it out longer.

Since you don't know me, or my sources, do what you can to confirm what I shared. A good start would be a call to your container manufacturer. (I only contacted people I know at two of them.)

BTW, I haven't spoken with anyone at Aviacom. If you know how to reach them, go for it.

I've been given a pretty good picture of motives, legal issues, etc., but will keep that to myself, in the interest of keeping things here civil.


theonlyski  (D License)

May 8, 2011, 8:55 PM
Post #100 of 120 (806 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhys] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
By looking at those pictures it looks to me as though the loop was in fact severed, the bridle was indeed under tention and I cannot see how the bridle and freebag could possibly be configured that way from popping open upon impact. Can you ellaborate on your position there?

Severed, yes... cleanly cut as a result from an AAD fire, no.

The folds in the reserve were still neat, indicating that it had not been subjected to the air flow of freefall.


funfall  (C 1)

May 8, 2011, 9:07 PM
Post #101 of 120 (1223 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Regarding the Polish incident -

I assume you noted that the victim was seen falling "flat and stable", with no apparent movement, until near impact, FWIW. Did the reserve stay in her burble? Just one more data point.


(This post was edited by funfall on May 8, 2011, 9:35 PM)


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
May 8, 2011, 9:33 PM
Post #102 of 120 (1210 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhys] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.pia.com/...dentAnalysisRev1.pdf Jeff did an excellent job in putting the rough details of each incident in his write up here. With the bridle under true tension there would not be the 2-4 feet of bridle between the freebag and where it went around the lines. Try it yourself, I did during a repack to see if I could get it to match up and with more than minimal tension on the pilot chute it will not line up that way and the material is messed up if it occurs with any airflow at all around it.

And I apologize it seems like it was a second Polish incident in which they never received the AAD after it was reportedly shipped. Italy is not mentioned in this report


rhys  (D 95)

May 8, 2011, 11:00 PM
Post #103 of 120 (1183 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
With the bridle under true tension there would not be the 2-4 feet of bridle between the freebag and where it went around the lines. Try it yourself, I did during a repack to see if I could get it to match up and with more than minimal tension on the pilot chute it will not line up that way and the material is messed up if it occurs with any airflow at all around it.

So what are you saying about these photos then?

Do you assume the evidence was tampered with, or that the bridle being wrapped around the lines would not inhibit an opening from less than 1000ft?

if you read the words of the article you posted;

Quote:
Some have called this the controversial photo but I donít see any controversy here. If any of this was out before impact, this would be a tangled mess. This is clearly not the case here.
An impact at terminal is very violent and traumatic; it can produce many of such occurrences. Things can and do explosively fly many directions, in many ways. I would rather not give detail from my experience.

That is pure assumtion, It is difficult to beleive that the freebag could have been launched off the back of the jumper upon impact and the bridle ending up configured as such.

Can you be more clear as to how you interpret that report.

It looks to me the reserve canopy was in the freebag completely and locked closed by the bridle until the point of impact. This explains the lack of a tangled mess, the bounce/forces generated on the body and equipment may have configured the evidence in this manner.

How anyone can pack a reserve like that is beyond me, but we have all seen nd heard horror stories with packing.

The fibers in the cutter are a concern. but the routing of the bridle just does not make sense.


(This post was edited by rhys on May 8, 2011, 11:33 PM)


theonlyski  (D License)

May 9, 2011, 12:22 AM
Post #104 of 120 (1163 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhys] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It looks to me the reserve canopy was in the freebag completely and locked closed by the bridle until the point of impact. This explains the lack of a tangled mess, the bounce/forces generated on the body and equipment may have configured the evidence in this manner.

How anyone can pack a reserve like that is beyond me, but we have all seen nd heard horror stories with packing.

The freebag is flap up, so it is flipped atleast 180* from its proper orientation.

http://www.dropzone.com/...post=3819176#3819176

See that post, he purposefully recreated the picture, then pulled on it... wanna guess what happened when he pulled with a heavy hand (which was probably not even close to what the PC would've done)?


holie  (A License)

May 9, 2011, 2:19 AM
Post #105 of 120 (1142 views)
Shortcut
Re: [funfall] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
...

Since you don't know me, or my sources, do what you can to confirm what I shared. A good start would be a call to your container manufacturer. (I only contacted people I know at two of them.)

...

... did it via eMail with SunPath last week but did not get an answer at all!
A little "give us a week or two" or "received your mail working on it" would have been the least! Frown

BSBD
Holger


rhys  (D 95)

May 9, 2011, 2:55 AM
Post #106 of 120 (1130 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The freebag is flap up, so it is flipped atleast 180* from its proper orientation.

http://www.dropzone.com/...post=3819176#3819176

See that post, he purposefully recreated the picture, then pulled on it... wanna guess what happened when he pulled with a heavy hand (which was probably not even close to what the PC would've done)?

Pulling on the bridle after recreating the configuration that resulted after impact, is nowhere close to simulating the configuration the system was in when the person was still in freefall.

That is a seriously flawed excercise as you have not worked backwards through the sequence.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

May 9, 2011, 4:04 AM
Post #107 of 120 (1107 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhys] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
That is pure assumtion, It is difficult to beleive that the freebag could have been launched off the back of the jumper upon impact and the bridle ending up configured as such.

That is not ďpure assumptionĒ on Ericís part but it is assumption on your part. Having been involved in more fatality investigations then I care to think about I assure you that what you see in the pictures not unusual. The forces generated when a 200+ lb body hits the ground at around 120 mph is somewhere around 49 tons. Since 60% of the human body is water the rebound energy is more than enough to break the loop and pitch the bag from the container.

In reply to:
It looks to me the reserve canopy was in the freebag completely and locked closed by the bridle until the point of impact. This explains the lack of a tangled mess, the bounce/forces generated on the body and equipment may have configured the evidence in this manner.

How anyone can pack a reserve like that is beyond me, but we have all seen nd heard horror stories with packing.


You have no idea how this rig was packed. From your response I would say your knowledge of proper rigging is limited. You need to quit looking for something that is not there.

Sparky


rhys  (D 95)

May 9, 2011, 4:57 AM
Post #108 of 120 (1086 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
That is not ďpure assumptionĒ on Ericís part but it is assumption on your part. Having been involved in more fatality investigations then I care to think about I assure you that what you see in the pictures not unusual. The forces generated when a 200+ lb body hits the ground at around 120 mph is somewhere around 49 tons. Since 60% of the human body is water the rebound energy is more than enough to break the loop and pitch the bag from the container.

So you beleive that upon impact the loop can snap, and the freebag can have perfect linestrech while the bridle neatly wraps itself around the lines....

I know there is alot of force upon impact of a 70-80kh weight hittning the ground at or near terminal. That does not explain how the bridle came to be configured as such. Do you sugest the freebag was thrown forward while the spring neatly danced around the lines, then continued the same trajectory?

In reply to:
You have no idea how this rig was packed. From your response I would say your knowledge of proper rigging is limited. You need to quit looking for something that is not there.

Sparky

I know that the bridle should not be around the lines and I know the closing and opening sequence, that is all I need to know to make a valid observation of that photo, your buddies assertion, is only that. It has merit and I am not saying that it is definately not true, though it seems really unlikely that the equipment could be configured like that from the loop breaking on impact.


davelepka  (D 21448)

May 9, 2011, 5:15 AM
Post #109 of 120 (1078 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhys] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I know that the bridle should not be around the lines and I know the closing and opening sequence,

Given what Sparky has posted about the rebound energy, the opening sequence would not be what you expect.

If there was rebound energy moving up through the jumper and pushing the freebag upwards and out of the reserve pack tray, that would introduce two different factors to the reserve container opening. First, the energy that pushed the bag up and out of the container, something you would never see in a 'normal' opening. In a 'normal' opening, the freebag is pulled from above (by the PC), but in this case it would have been pushed from below.

Second, you would not have the wind speed to carry the PC up and away from the freebag. The spring pressure would launch it upwards, but beyond the spring pressure, there would be nothing more to move the spring anywhere.

What you end up with is the possibility that the freebag was pushed upawards with more force than the spring provided to push the PC upwards. Now the ffeebag has a way to overtake the PC on the way up, add in some lateral movement from either component on the way up or down, and you have the bridale wrapping around the lines.

Do we know for sure? No. But the options are that it happened on it's own, was misrigged, or was 'staged' to alter the results of the investigation. With no reason to suggest such a grave rigging error, no reason to suggest foul play that would motivate someone to doctor the equipment at the scene, and a mechanism (as explained above) to explain the configuration in which the equipment was found, we go with the explanation that it happen upon impact.


rhys  (D 95)

May 9, 2011, 5:53 AM
Post #110 of 120 (1058 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Given what Sparky has posted about the rebound energy, the opening sequence would not be what you expect.

I never said that is what t expect, but knowing the opening sequence helps understand what might happen, or in this case, what might not happen in the event of loop snapping on impact.

In reply to:
If there was rebound energy moving up through the jumper and pushing the freebag upwards and out of the reserve ...

...Do we know for sure? No. But the options are that it happened on it's own, was misrigged, or was 'staged' to alter the results of the investigation. With no reason to suggest such a grave rigging error, no reason to suggest foul play that would motivate someone to doctor the equipment at the scene, and a mechanism (as explained above) to explain the configuration in which the equipment was found, we go with the explanation that it happen upon impact.

You missed the possibility that the reserve hesitated.

and we do indeed have reason to believe it was miss rigged as there is a bridle wrapped around a freebag... whether that is conclusive or not is a different story, but there is certainly reason to beleive...

and there are possibly several other scenarios that may or may not be considered or known.


(This post was edited by rhys on May 9, 2011, 6:26 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 9, 2011, 7:47 AM
Post #111 of 120 (1019 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhys] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

>It is difficult to beleive that the freebag could have been launched off the
>back of the jumper upon impact and the bridle ending up configured as
>such.

It's happened before. It's pretty clear that that perfectly packed reserve never saw any airflow across it.


rhys  (D 95)

May 9, 2011, 9:45 PM
Post #112 of 120 (925 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It's happened before. It's pretty clear that that perfectly packed reserve never saw any airflow across it.


It is also pretty clear that the pack has never completely left the freebag as it is still partially inside the freebag after impact.

I stand by my observation that it is most likely that the bridle held the freebag closed until the point of impact, this would meant the loop was cut and the pilot chute launched.

That is speculation, as is any other conclusion it seems. but it is the best assumtion I can come up with. It is also backed by the evidence.

The routing of the bridle is best explined with this scenario.


(This post was edited by rhys on May 9, 2011, 9:48 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 9, 2011, 10:11 PM
Post #113 of 120 (912 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhys] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

>I stand by my observation that it is most likely that the bridle held the
>freebag closed until the point of impact . . .

There is no way that freebag was out and exposed to 120mph air with the folds near the slider still perfectly arranged and undisturbed.


rhys  (D 95)

May 9, 2011, 11:31 PM
Post #114 of 120 (900 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
There is no way that freebag was out and exposed to 120mph air with the folds near the slider still perfectly arranged and undisturbed.

If it was locked closed by the bridle the fabric would not be exposed now, would it. if the reserve was in fact rigged with the bridle around the lines, then the lines would have met much resistance from the bridle but the figure 8's could still slide out and the locking stows could still slide out leaving the freebag compleltly locked closed by the bridle, the slider grommets would be the first object that would not slide through the loop of the bridle.

we all know how little time there is from 750 feet to impact.

With the bag locked closed the fabric would not be exposed to the relative wind.

How else do you suspect the opening sequence would go if the bridle was wrapped around the lines like that?



There is no way the bridle can dance around the lines and end up like that due to a broken loop on impact...

Truth is neither of us know for sure, you tend to beleive one thing and I tend to beleive another.


(This post was edited by rhys on May 9, 2011, 11:44 PM)


mjosparky  (D 5476)

May 10, 2011, 12:13 AM
Post #115 of 120 (886 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhys] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
There is no way that freebag was out and exposed to 120mph air with the folds near the slider still perfectly arranged and undisturbed.

If it was locked closed by the bridle the fabric would not be exposed now, would it.

There is no way the bridle can dance around the lines and end up like that due to a broken loop on impact...

Truth is neither of us know for sure, you tend to beleive one thing and I tend to beleive another.

Every rigger I have talked to has come to the same conclusion. You statements donít hold up the photo evidence and it is clear your knowledge of rigging principles is lacking when you insist your view is the only possible way it could have happened.

In reply to:
Truth is neither of us know for sure,

The truth is nothing is for sure except that I have to pay taxes and the sun will come up in the morning. And I am not willing to bet on the sun.

You are entitled to believe what you want and you are entitled to be wrong. You get one rigger or someone with experience in scene investigation to agree with your theory and I will listen to what they have to say. Until then you are just being hard headed.

Sparky


theonlyski  (D License)

May 10, 2011, 12:49 AM
Post #116 of 120 (879 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhys] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

F..k it, I'll bite...

In reply to:
If it was locked closed by the bridle the fabric would not be exposed now, would it. if the reserve was in fact rigged with the bridle around the lines, then the lines would have met much resistance from the bridle but the figure 8's could still slide out and the locking stows could still slide out leaving the freebag compleltly locked closed by the bridle, the slider grommets would be the first object that would not slide through the loop of the bridle.


If the lines came out of the stow pocket, and the locking stows were released... how the f*** do you expect the damn bridle to keep the bag shut? The stows have all played out, and there is literally NOTHING holding the bag closed.

Also, look at the folds on the sides of the canopy, the width reducing folds notice the canopy is still the same width as the freebag? its because the folds weren't even disturbed. A strong fan would do this, much more so falling at 120mph.

ETA: and if ya think about it, freefall would've probably blown air into the 'ears' of the freebag, blowing it further off the packjob.


(This post was edited by theonlyski on May 10, 2011, 12:55 AM)


pchapman  (D 1014)

May 10, 2011, 5:30 AM
Post #117 of 120 (837 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

I can see that at first glance, a bridle around a lines just below a freebag doesn't look good.

A big issue with Rhys' scenario is that it implies that the freebag came off only at impact (since the canopy is so neatly folded) , and that the lines stayed perfectly extended and straight after impact. The bag is towed with 10+ feet of lines at 110+ mph into the ground, and ends up in that neat configuration, instead of bouncing all over?

Rhys wrote:
Quote:
It looks to me the reserve canopy was in the freebag completely and locked closed by the bridle until the point of impact. This explains the lack of a tangled mess, the bounce/forces generated on the body and equipment may have configured the evidence in this manner.

It seems harder to avoid a tangled mess if the freebag is whipped into the ground at the end of the lines, than if it were in the container.

In both scenarios (freebag in or out of container before impact), you need the freebag whipped out to the end of the lines to leave them and the canopy straight.

In the scenario with the bag out in freefall, whatever wraps around the bottom of the freebag have to loosen off enough that the bag could slide off the canopy, and be left with bridle rotated just 3/4 of a turn around the lines. (Or, just 1/4 turn if one excludes the bag having landed on its back.)

In the scenario with the bag in the container during freefall, all the bag has to do as it flings out is rotate right , and be thrown off to the right, leaving some bridle that was ontop of it, now underneath, while the PC gets thrown off to the left, and voila: neat lines, canopy & bag land upside down, 3/4 wrap of bridle around the lines below the canopy. And as the bag hits the end of the lines, the bag's safety stow unlocks, and momentum carries even a light weight freebag off the canopy. (That's much like what happens when hand tossing a paragliding emergency parachute while on the ground, a light weight bag coming off the canopy.)

I think the 'unusually neat' configuration argues for the bag coming out on impact.

So is Rhys' scenario basically that the rigger packed the reserve with the bridle wrapped once around the lines?

And there are the torn fibres in the cutter, which can't be a design feature, older style cutter or not.


holie  (A License)

May 11, 2011, 12:00 AM
Post #118 of 120 (737 views)
Shortcut
Re: [holie] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Now there is an SunPath answer ...
Hhave a mind of your own:
Quote:

Hello Holger,
I understand that this situation is uneasy at best. This unfortunately is the case with many Argus customers. However, the responses from Aviacom to date have not been sufficient in providing a proper root cause analysis nor a viable corrective action that addresses ALL of the recent failure modes now identified. More information has been posted on the PIA website which may provide more clarification on this for you and better help you understand the severity of the situation. Please read Jeff Johnstons report. This will probably help clear any confusion.

At this time, I do not see Sun Path allowing ARGUS installation anytime soon. Sorry I donít have better news. But until the cutter design issues are addressed and resolved, this unit in its current configuration will not be approved for installation in the Javelin nor Javelin Odyssey. Yes, I would say it is time to purchase a new AAD which has a current installation approval.

Take care and sorry for the delay in response.

--
Dave Singer
Director of Engineering/R&D Program Management
Sun Path Products, Inc.
910-875-9002 PH
910-875-9272 FX
813-469-9355 M
Dave@sunpath.com

looking forward - got a second rig
Holger


mjosparky  (D 5476)

May 11, 2011, 2:26 AM
Post #119 of 120 (715 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

Peter,

The report by the Polish authorities indicate that the jumper went in with nothing showing hence the controversy about the partially cut loop. I have attached a picture showing the front of the rig. You will notice that it appears that initial contact with the ground is above the chest strap and into the 3 rings. This is consistent with the jumper being a little head down as if reaching for handles or PC. The picture of the reserve on the ground is also consistent with an impact of this angle. The rebound energy produced after impact would cause the bag to be ejected forward over the head and shoulders of the jumper. Initial impact most likely caused the loop to part and the PC went up. The rebound energy drove the bag forward allowing the PC and bridle to end up below bag and into the lines. From the photo evidence available I feel this is the most likely scenario. Given the opportunity to be on scene and see the situation in its entirety I may have come to a different conclusion but I am going on what is at hand.

Sparky
Attachments: Doc1.pdf (145 KB)


pchapman  (D 1014)

May 11, 2011, 4:22 AM
Post #120 of 120 (698 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Argus Ban List [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree Sparky. I was trying to point out how I think Rhys' scenario of the bag being out in freefall is unlikely, while the evidence is consistent with the bag coming out on impact.



Forums : Skydiving : Gear and Rigging

 


Search for (options)