Yes. A fatality in Poland where the jumper wore Argus. The above link directs you to photos from Polish government report and the unofficial translation of key findings.
So after reading the TD again I have some questions about what is being done to reslove this issue.
~ from the argus events letter
Quote:
I wrote “ARGUS Cutter Review” paper in June 2010 outlining my theory on the Polish Fatality that was sent to PIA Technical committee and circulated to all the members by Dave Singer, Chair PIA Technical Committee, as a discussion paper on 30 Sept 2010. The report was also sent to Aviacom on 29 Sept 2010. In my attached email I requested what the course of action would be in light of the second incident that occurred in Portugal. As yet there has been no response.
The day before this was sent to Aviacom, Aviacom sent this to the APF
Quote:
On 28 Sept 2010 Aviacom issued a Letter of Demand to the APF that it lifts all restrictions on the use of the Argus and cites that our Director Rigging Mr. Rory Hatchett has a vested interest in suppressing the use of the ARGUS AAD and that the APF has previously supported the sale and use of Airtec’s CYPRES AAD. Mr. Groots also states that the issue of their Service Bulletin SB AMM0050910/2 removes any excuse the APF may have to discriminate the ARGUS.
So the APF responds to this reqeust by Aviacom with their theory on what happened in the Polish Fatality and asked what the course of action would be in light of the secong incident in portugal. What exactly was Aviacom asked to do by the APF? or were they just asking what Aviacom was doing about it? Is it true that both of these cutters were affected by the Argus SB and the new replacement cutter is Aviacoms response to these incidents?
Quote:
The Aviacom SB on cutter replacement has not as yet demonstrated that it is superior to the cutter involved in the Polish fatality. The APF and TAG await more detail to review its initial Technical Directive.
Quote:
it is my recommendation that all ARGUS AADs be grounded until Aviacom is able to replace the cutters in the ARGUS AAD with a demonstratively superior and reliable cutter. Reliability testing to include tests in packed parachutes representative of common general pack designs to ensure that mechanical interaction between pack flap grommets and spring pilot-chutes is taken into account. This should be a standard test requirement of all AAD manufacturers and equipment manufacturer who approve their fitting to their equipment.
Did the APF and TAG request this information from Aviacom at anytime before issuing this TD and let them know that if this information wasn't recieved the Argus would be grounded.
What is Aviacom doing to comply with the requests in the last quote and has Aviacom been advised of these requirements by the APF?
"This should be a standard test requirement of all AAD manufacturers and equipment manufacturer who approve their fitting to their equipment." Has the APF required this of any other manufactuer of AAD yet?
I've Emailed both the APF and Aviacom asking them similar questions. Should be interesting to see what, if any reply I recieve.
Aviacoms website says they will be releasing documents next week as to why the Argus has been banned in australia as well as information regarding the Polish and Portugal Incidents.
Nov 26, 2010, 8:33 AM
Post #15 of 61
(3050 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Australia Bans Argus AAD
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
It seems that there are lots of attacks against their competition also in that email and the linked documents.
On the other hand, it is also possible to interpret the Aviacom paper as a cry for a level playing field.
If a circular-knife cutter is a problem, maybe all circular-knife cutters should be banned? If not, why not?
The APF "Argus Event History" cites US FAA AC-105-2C as stating that “assembled components must function properly and may not interfere with the operation of other components”.
Taking that to the logical conclusion says to me that any rig with a cutter that could lock a pilot chute should be grounded, since we can never know for sure that any cutter will work properly until it actually fires.
There are now several rigs with the AAD cutter positioned such that a failed cutter could prevent extracting the pin from beginning the deployment. Should rigs like that be banned as well? If not, why not?
Nov 26, 2010, 8:41 AM
Post #16 of 61
(3043 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] Australia Bans Argus AAD
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
The APF "Argus Event History" cites US FAA AC-105-2C as stating that “assembled components must function properly and may not interfere with the operation of other components”.
Taking that to the logical conclusion says to me that any rig with a cutter that could lock a pilot chute should be grounded, since we can never know for sure that any cutter will work properly until it actually fires.
There are now several rigs with the AAD cutter positioned such that a failed cutter could prevent extracting the pin from beginning the deployment. Should rigs like that be banned as well? If not, why not?
I agree with your devils-advocate comments here ~ it does seem that when a Cypres Fails, not much happens.
Nov 26, 2010, 1:03 PM
Post #17 of 61
(2972 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hcsvader] Australia Bans Argus AAD
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
They don't seem to be doing anything to solve the issue and get Argus owners back in the air.
It seems they do:
Quote:
Following their meetings of the 25th November 2010, the Riggers’ Sub-Committee and the STC have now decided that rigs fitted with Argus AADs may now be put back into service provided the Argus AAD is fitted with a cutter manufactured after the beginning of September 2007 and may only be fitted to equipment authorised by both the AAD manufacturer and container manufacturer and fitted in a manner acceptable to them.
Nov 28, 2010, 8:17 AM
Post #20 of 61
(2792 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hcsvader] Australia Bans Argus AAD
[In reply to]
Can't Post
It is obvious that Argus was outlawed by the APF with a very weak investigation. If this is how they continue to deal with this matter, I think they're showing a lack of respect to all their APF members, DZOs, and jumpers.
Also I have read peoples post with issues towards the circular cutters. I'm nearly positive that both the Vigil and Argus have these? Not 1000% sure but I do recall this during the product testing we did between all the current AAD manufactures in 09. All the cutters we tested cut the loops with ease.
Further more all Argus skydivers need to speak out to the APF. Petition your Association demanding Argus be put back into service following the same guidelines as the BPA.. Or demand them to meet with Karel Groots, I'd say Argus deserves a FAIR TRIAL
Nov 28, 2010, 9:11 AM
Post #21 of 61
(2771 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] Australia Bans Argus AAD
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
There are now several rigs with the AAD cutter positioned such that a failed cutter could prevent extracting the pin from beginning the deployment. Should rigs like that be banned as well? If not, why not?
If there were/are such rigs that an AAD failure would prevent the reserve ripcord from being pulled by the jumper or prevent the reserve from opening, the rig needs to be grounded, not the AAD.
Nov 28, 2010, 11:50 AM
Post #22 of 61
(2726 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Bolas] Australia Bans Argus AAD
[In reply to]
Can't Post
If there were/are such rigs that an AAD failure would prevent the reserve ripcord from being pulled by the jumper or prevent the reserve from opening, the rig needs to be grounded, not the AAD. There are rigs out there that would "lock" the pilot chute in the contaner if the cutter jams on the loop. Talon, Telesis, and VooDoo, to name some of the rigs I've done repacks on, have the cutter placement on a side flap that rests on top of the PC. IMO this is a design flaw that needs to be corrected.
Nov 28, 2010, 12:10 PM
Post #24 of 61
(2714 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Australia Bans Argus AAD
[In reply to]
Can't Post
The probability is almost zero but not completely at zero.
Just my thoughts . . .
JerryBaumchen
PS) I would hate to be on the committee trying to write a standard for TSO-authorization of an AAD. I suggest not going 'there.' I have no intention of opening up that "can of worms." As far as the very big "if" a cutter could jam on a loop. JMO, the "if" is big enough that I won't jump a rig with a cutter mounted above the freebag or could lock the through loop, in the case of the Racer.
(This post was edited by firemedic on Nov 28, 2010, 12:41 PM)
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 28, 2010, 12:31 PM
Post #25 of 61
(2701 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CrazyAl] Australia Bans Argus AAD
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>It is obvious that Argus was outlawed by the APF with a very weak investigation.
Agreed. However, it is not their role to prove that the Argus is safe. It is their role to determine that it MIGHT kill skydivers. They have done so.
It is now in Argus's responsibility to provide a thorough investigation to both determine the cause and ensure it will not happen again.
Take the case of a commercial airliner whose rudder often falls off. It is not the job of the FAA (or other national authority) to determine why the rudder falls off and/or to fix the problem. It is merely to determine that yes, the rudder often falls off, and must be fixed.
BPA S INFO 1-10.pdf
1
