Forums: Skydiving: Gear and Rigging:
Philosophy of banning the Argus

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 22, 2011, 6:17 PM
Post #1 of 117 (3188 views)
Shortcut
Philosophy of banning the Argus Can't Post

Some opinions:

Although I'm not happy with how slowly Aviacom has appreciated the Argus cutter issues and dealt with them, the way things get banned these days I wonder about the philosophy of doing so.

The Argus clearly has a problem cutting loops in some conditions. I can see rig companies wishing to be dissociated with a "loser", but some companies sure react fast and strongly once the word gets passed around, to ban the Argus in their rigs.

I bet the US FAA rules on manufacturer approval for AAD installations is driving this process, that rig manufacturer don't want to be linked officially to a product with a problem, that's physically installed inside their rigs. Wusses. They don't ban other potentially dangerous things that people might jump with.

Unless manufacturers have a specific rig configuration that changes the odds of something going wrong, then if there's an industry wide warning they don't really have to jump on the band wagon with their own specific rules.

The idea of banning an AAD temporarily also depends on one's philosophy on AADs.

For students and tandems, there's pretty much agreement that they should be protected with a decent AAD. But for experienced jumpers, the situation is different.

The Argus isn't much danger to others on the plane or the sky, as it isn't firing inadvertently. It would only be a problem if one smoked it low, had the loop not cut properly, and go up again without checking one's AAD. That could be dealt with largely by bulletins about increased inspections, just as is done with aircraft part problems while waiting for a long term solution.

The Argus also creates little increased risk to the jumper if they behave properly. An Argus can only impede a manual reserve pull if you pull your reserve a lot lower than you should, if one has a certain cutter location and the Argus happens to cut the loop poorly just before you get the reserve extracted.

If someone's philosophy is that AAD's should be mandatory, then the Argus is doing a lousy job and perhaps rigs and jumpers should be grounded.

But if one's philosophy is that AAD's are an optional safety device, then Argus' are still useful. If you lose altitude awareness or are knocked silly in freefall, it quite easily still has a 90+% chance to save your life. That may be a good tradeoff against a chance of jamming up (depending on the rig) if you pull your reserve below 1000'.

(My biases: I'm in the group who believes that AAD's should be optional once off student status. And I've got a Cypres 2.)

As much as Argus' cutters and their response to the problem sucks, I'm not sure Argus' should all be grounded.


Beachbum  (B License)

Mar 22, 2011, 6:38 PM
Post #2 of 117 (3137 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

From what I understand, there has been at least one instance of it partially severing a closing loop which later gave way and deployed the reserve, fortunately on the ground. Had that happened at a worse time, it could have been very bad for others in the air with the person wearing it at the time, or even an entire plane load. I think maybe the ban is more related to the possible situations a malfunction of it could introduce to people besides just the owner of the rig it is installed in that prompted the ban?


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 22, 2011, 6:39 PM
Post #3 of 117 (3137 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
As much as Argus' cutters and their response to the problem sucks, I'm not sure Argus' should all be grounded

No, they really should be. They don't work the way they are supposed to, and even though you feel the failures are acceptable, they are not. If something doesn't work right, you don't keep jumping it because you don't 'think' the failure will be a problem, you stop jumping it until the problem has been resolved.

You have to remember that this isn't an altimeter or audlible that doesn't work quite right, it's an intergal part of your reserve system, and litterally has a stranglehold over your reserve closing loop. It might cut it, it might partially cut it, it might even trap it and contain the reserve PC. The scope and severity of the trouble a malfunctioning AAD can cause makes it a no-brainer that you stop jumping them until normal, reliable operation can be restored.

Quote:
It would only be a problem if one smoked it low, had the loop not cut properly, and go up again without checking one's AAD. That could be dealt with largely by bulletins about increased inspections,

One of the reasons that AADs were not that popular pre-Cypres is that they were not 'set it and forget it'. As sad as it might be, that's the only way to 'idiot proof' an AAD, and the most reliable method for making sure they are used properly. Make it one step, and most of the time it will be done, and done correctly. Add steps, and you add in chances for the humans in the equation to fail.

You can't allow someone to jump a malfunctioning AAD with the proviso that they check to see if had fired and failed to the cut the loop before every jump. There are too many opportunites for the check to be forgotten, or communication about a check to be mistaken. The result being a jumper in the plane and in freefall with a comprimised reserve closing loop, and an in-op AAD.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Mar 22, 2011, 10:06 PM
Post #4 of 117 (2994 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
As much as Argus' cutters and their response to the problem sucks, I'm not sure Argus' should all be grounded

No, they really should be. They don't work the way they are supposed to, and even though you feel the failures are acceptable, they are not. If something doesn't work right, you don't keep jumping it because you don't 'think' the failure will be a problem, you stop jumping it until the problem has been resolved.

There is another AAD that has had a number of documented cases of firing in an aircraft when a door popped open.

I don't recall any talk of banning that AAD, and I'd like to know why the two are being treated differently.

Ban both, or ban neither. (However, I am absolutely not suggesting that "neither" is the right action.)

Banning one and not the other doesn't seem prudent for all the reasons you stated.

I don't recall what you might think about that other AAD.

I am not arguing with your logic that the Argus should be grounded now.

And the question of why the other AAD was not banned is not really directed at you, Dave.

But you posted some very good reasons why we should ban an AAD that does bad things, which begs the question of why one is banned but not the other.


Unstable  (D 28930)

Mar 22, 2011, 10:28 PM
Post #5 of 117 (2977 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
There is another AAD that has had a number of documented cases of firing in an aircraft when a door popped open.
...............................
I am not arguing with your logic that the Argus should be grounded now.
.........................................
But you posted some very good reasons why we should ban an AAD that does bad things, which begs the question of why one is banned but not the other.


+1. Well Said, Rigger Paul. It seems other AADs went through growing pains of sorts. Hell, there are videos on youtube of various AADs misfiring. Talking to some gear manufacturers today who confided in me that they will not be taking action at this time, cited specifically the 'difference' in reactions to different manufacturers.


*Edited to change a few sentences that could be read as too aggressive in my wording, just trying to avoid confusion.


(This post was edited by Unstable on Mar 22, 2011, 10:32 PM)


LongWayToFall  (A 52639)

Mar 23, 2011, 12:58 AM
Post #6 of 117 (2919 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

Eh, to each his own. If I had an Argus I'd probably keep jumping it, because I'd rather do that then jump without an aad, or bite the $1200 needed to buy another aad and toss the argus.
Taking a look at your aad screen is the least of your worries if you are pulling your main low enough to activate the aad.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Mar 23, 2011, 5:12 AM
Post #7 of 117 (2850 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
There is another AAD that has had a number of documented cases of firing in an aircraft when a door popped open.

I don't recall any talk of banning that AAD, and I'd like to know why the two are being treated differently.

I'm not sure why they would be treated differently either. The standard I set for the Argus should stand for any AAD, or really any part of the reserve system. If it doesn't work reliably, and as designed, it should not be a part of the reserve system. Even if the failure mode is benign, it's just taking up space and subtracting from the KISS principal at that point. Remove it, solve the problem and go from there.

In terms of the Vigil, I don't recall if there was ever a solid conclusion as to what happened. I know we had a variety of theories here on DZ.com, and some of them seemed to 'add up', but it was still guesswork.

In this case, we have three instances where cutters only partiall cut the loop, with the factory confirming the problem, and supposedly 'solving' it with a recall. With the problem presisting beyond the recall, and keeping in mind the factory admitting the problem, and the published reports surrounding the incidents in question, the problem has become 'real' and 'official' enough to warrant action.

I'm not sure where the attitude comes from, but any time you tout the Cypres, jumpers pop up and back the other brands, or call you a Cypres-snob. I'm not sire what Cypres has done to garner these negative feelings, but I know what it has done to garner my respect. The fact is that Cypres has established the standard that all AADs need to be judged by. I'm not saying that they are perfect, but what's the sense in marketing, buying, or jumping as AAD that cannot meet the standard set by the Cypres when you could just jump a Cypres. Could it be better? Sure. Should other manufacturers strive to surpass the standard set by the Cypres? Sure.

In the meantime, Cypres undoubtedly has the best record for proper operation, or at the minimum, failing via complete inaction as opposed to improper operation. The fact that it has been on the market the longest, and the most widely distributed only makes the safety record even more impressive. It has had more opportunities by far to fail when compared to the other brands, but it remains the 'safest' AAD out there.


sriddy  (D License)

Mar 23, 2011, 7:50 AM
Post #8 of 117 (2755 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

The way I see it, as a lowly nobody senior rigger, is like this:

In two incidents, a problem was found with the Argus cutter not completely severing the closing loop. Aviacom acknowledged the problem and attempted to solve it by recalling all cutters made before April(ish) 2007.

A third incident uncovered the same problem with a newer cutter. This implies that Aviacom hasn't fixed the problem.

Now the issue is known to the public, including lawyers. So the manufacturers are disallowing Argus use until Aviacom gets their shit straight.

Like it has been said above, all AAD manufacturers have had issues to solve, so I'm not trying to badmouth Aviacom. But I can see the point of view of the container manufacturers that don't want to be sued out of existence.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Mar 23, 2011, 8:17 AM
Post #9 of 117 (2725 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sriddy] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The way I see it, as a lowly nobody senior rigger, is like this:

In two incidents, a problem was found with the Argus cutter not completely severing the closing loop. Aviacom acknowledged the problem and attempted to solve it by recalling all cutters made before April(ish) 2007.

A third incident uncovered the same problem with a newer cutter. This implies that Aviacom hasn't fixed the problem.

Now the issue is known to the public, including lawyers. So the manufacturers are disallowing Argus use until Aviacom gets their shit straight.

Like it has been said above, all AAD manufacturers have had issues to solve, so I'm not trying to badmouth Aviacom. But I can see the point of view of the container manufacturers that don't want to be sued out of existence.

So why are the H/C manufacturers not banning the Vigil?

It has fired in the plane, and the manufacturer says they won't fix it because it isn't broken.

Why would the H/C manufacturers not be scared of that AAD as well?

Something in this playing field does not seem to be level.

Seems to me that either one of these devices needs fixing before the H/C manufacturers would be happy again.

Now, at least one manufacturer I contacted said that they do not approve AADs.

But, according to CFR 105.43.b.3 -
The tandem parachute system contains an operational automatic activation device for the reserve parachute, approved by the manufacturer of that tandem parachute system.
The device must
(i) Have been maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions, and
(ii) Be armed during each tandem parachute operation.
(red emphasis mine)

If the H/C manufacturer isn't approving AADs, then we can't legally jump the tandem parachute system, can we?

Anyway, why aren't the two AADs treated the same way?

Either one could easily cause a catastrophe should it repeat a known behavior at the wrong time.

So why is one banned and not the other?


piisfish

Mar 23, 2011, 8:48 AM
Post #10 of 117 (2704 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Either one could easily cause a catastrophe should it repeat a known behavior at the wrong time.

So why is one banned and not the other?
maybe because one of them does not prevent proper opening of the reserve ?


CrazyAl  (C 3179)

Mar 23, 2011, 9:05 AM
Post #11 of 117 (2688 views)
Shortcut
Re: [piisfish] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

It just takes down entire airplanes full of people instead?


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Mar 23, 2011, 9:11 AM
Post #12 of 117 (2677 views)
Shortcut
Re: [piisfish] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Either one could easily cause a catastrophe should it repeat a known behavior at the wrong time.

So why is one banned and not the other?
maybe because one of them does not prevent proper opening of the reserve ?

Do you really think that is a valid distinction?

Lock the reserve container closed = 1 dead person.

Bring down the plane? Depends on the plane, but it seems to me that the number pretty much starts at 2.


(This post was edited by riggerpaul on Mar 23, 2011, 9:13 AM)


ridestrong  (C 38471)

Mar 23, 2011, 9:15 AM
Post #13 of 117 (2664 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
The way I see it, as a lowly nobody senior rigger, is like this:

In two incidents, a problem was found with the Argus cutter not completely severing the closing loop. Aviacom acknowledged the problem and attempted to solve it by recalling all cutters made before April(ish) 2007.

A third incident uncovered the same problem with a newer cutter. This implies that Aviacom hasn't fixed the problem.

Now the issue is known to the public, including lawyers. So the manufacturers are disallowing Argus use until Aviacom gets their shit straight.

Like it has been said above, all AAD manufacturers have had issues to solve, so I'm not trying to badmouth Aviacom. But I can see the point of view of the container manufacturers that don't want to be sued out of existence.

So why are the H/C manufacturers not banning the Vigil?

It has fired in the plane, and the manufacturer says they won't fix it because it isn't broken.

Why would the H/C manufacturers not be scared of that AAD as well?

Something in this playing field does not seem to be level.

Seems to me that either one of these devices needs fixing before the H/C manufacturers would be happy again.

Now, at least one manufacturer I contacted said that they do not approve AADs.

But, according to CFR 105.43.b.3 -
The tandem parachute system contains an operational automatic activation device for the reserve parachute, approved by the manufacturer of that tandem parachute system.
The device must
(i) Have been maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions, and
(ii) Be armed during each tandem parachute operation.
(red emphasis mine)

If the H/C manufacturer isn't approving AADs, then we can't legally jump the tandem parachute system, can we?

Anyway, why aren't the two AADs treated the same way?

Either one could easily cause a catastrophe should it repeat a known behavior at the wrong time.

So why is one banned and not the other?



I'm certainly not a rigger... but as far as banning one and not the other, the issues between the two AADs are completely different.

The Argus has been proven to not properly cut the closing loop and this has not been properly corrected. (Seems pretty cut and dry)

The Vigil, had 2 miss-fires in the incident that you mentioned, that seem to be due to a combination or rare set of circumstances. This has yet to be proven as a defined problem with the device. (not yet cut and dry)

Ultimately one is an obviously known problem... and the other is yet just a 'phenomenon'.


(This post was edited by ridestrong on Mar 23, 2011, 9:22 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 23, 2011, 9:19 AM
Post #14 of 117 (2657 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CrazyAl] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

>It just takes down entire airplanes full of people instead?

Well, no, it doesn't. Even when you get a parachute open in the door (which has happened on loads I've been on) it doesn't "take down the airplane" usually.

However, an Argus that doesn't cut the loop and locks your reserve closed is a guaranteed fatality. There's no way to deal with a reserve that won't open when you are down to your last canopy.


piisfish

Mar 23, 2011, 9:22 AM
Post #15 of 117 (2651 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

I consider it as a distinction. Valid or not ?? It is just my interpretation (which can be questionned).

Bringing down the plane can be done with a misfire at the door, or by a damaged but not completely cut loop too.
So one of the AAD's has "only" the "down the plane" problem, the other one in addition has the "skydiver goes in with a locked parachute" option.
The positive way to look at it is if the skydiver goes in with a locked reserve, at least the plane should be safe.
I guess that manufacturers don't like stuff that can prevent a reserve deployment


CrazyAl  (C 3179)

Mar 23, 2011, 9:24 AM
Post #16 of 117 (2648 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

>It just takes down entire airplanes full of people instead?

>>Well, no, it doesn't. Even when you get a parachute open in the door (which has happened on loads I've been on) it doesn't "take down the airplane" usually.

>>However, an Argus that doesn't cut the loop and locks your reserve closed is a guaranteed fatality. There's no way to deal with a reserve that won't open when you are down to your last canopy.




True, because if every time a Vigil misfired it took down a plane, there wouldn't be very many of us skydivers left in this sport. And it would already be to late to ban anything.


(This post was edited by CrazyAl on Mar 23, 2011, 9:27 AM)


piisfish

Mar 23, 2011, 9:42 AM
Post #17 of 117 (2626 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CrazyAl] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
True, because if every time a Vigil misfired it took down a plane, there wouldn't be very many of us skydivers left in this sport. And it would already be to late to ban anything.
LaughLaugh this one is slightly exaggerated, but made me chuckle


CygnusX-1  (B 28761)

Mar 23, 2011, 9:47 AM
Post #18 of 117 (2618 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Do you really think that is a valid distinction?

Lock the reserve container closed = 1 dead person.

Bring down the plane? Depends on the plane, but it seems to me that the number pretty much starts at 2.

I think that is a very valid distinction. Just because the cutter fires inside a plane does not guarantee that the plane will be damaged and fall out of the sky killing everyone aboard. That is one possible outcome, but does not happen all the time.

But having a cutter not cut the loop - or worse yet trap the loop such that a normal pull doesn't open the reserve, does (for all practical purposes) mean death.


Ron

Mar 23, 2011, 9:59 AM
Post #19 of 117 (2591 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Wusses. They don't ban other potentially dangerous things that people might jump with.

The other things are not part of the container system.

Quote:
I can see rig companies wishing to be dissociated with a "loser", but some companies sure react fast and strongly once the word gets passed around, to ban the Argus in their rigs.

They do not want to deal with a lawsuit. Even if it is NOT related a person suing them could show that they didn't ground something that was "proven" to be dangerous.

Quote:
The Argus isn't much danger to others on the plane or the sky, as it isn't firing inadvertently.

It is a danger if it 'half fires' and then the loop breaks near the door or in freefall. Never forget that most people never do a pin check anyway, and that checking the AAD would never cross their minds.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Mar 23, 2011, 10:00 AM
Post #20 of 117 (2588 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ridestrong] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:

So why is one banned and not the other?



I'm certainly not a rigger... but as far as banning one and not the other, the issues between the two AADs are completely different.

The Argus has been proven to not properly cut the closing loop and this has not been properly corrected. (Seems pretty cut and dry)

The Vigil, had 2 miss-fires in the incident that you mentioned, that seem to be due to a combination or rare set of circumstances. This has yet to be proven to be a defined problem with the device. (not yet cut and dry)

Ultimately one is an obviously known problem... and the other is yet just a 'phenomenon'.

Actually Advanced Aerospace Designs has told us that the device worked as designed. So, should the same conditions occur again, the same behavior is expected.

Regarding the Argus cutter, we have absolutely seen that some cutters have worked just fine.

There has been mention that manufacturing tolerances may be responsible for some not working as planned. I say that is pretty much identical to being " due to a combination or rare set of circumstances".

That is a long way from saying that all the cutters have been "proven to not properly cut the closing loop".

In case you might be thinking that I oppose the Argus bans, I restate that I do not. They have a problem that must be solved.

But, as I see it, so does the Vigil.


Ron

Mar 23, 2011, 10:02 AM
Post #21 of 117 (2588 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I don't recall any talk of banning that AAD, and I'd like to know why the two are being treated differently.

I refused to buy either.

But, recognize that the Argus cutter failed. So if it was needed, it didn't work. It then created a dangerous situation if you didn't catch it.

The Vigil firing with the door was wrong, but much more in line with how an AAD should operate.

Quote:
But you posted some very good reasons why we should ban an AAD that does bad things, which begs the question of why one is banned but not the other.

Different reasons for the failures.


ridestrong  (C 38471)

Mar 23, 2011, 10:15 AM
Post #22 of 117 (2564 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In case you might be thinking that I oppose the Argus bans, I restate that I do not. They have a problem that must be solved.

But, as I see it, so does the Vigil.


Yeah I definitely see your point. I'm a bit up in the air with banning Vigil, it does seem that there is a data reading/progaming issue which caused the mis-fires.

Argus just seems more like a no brainer.


BrianM  (D 661)

Mar 23, 2011, 10:34 AM
Post #23 of 117 (2540 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ridestrong] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The Vigil, had 2 miss-fires in the incident that you mentioned, that seem to be due to a combination or rare set of circumstances. This has yet to be proven as a defined problem with the device. (not yet cut and dry)

Shortly after the incident in question, Vigil released graphs from the affected devices showing the recorded altitude and speed.

The graphs indicate that both units fired due to a very short spike in air pressure which represented an acceleration from zero to firing altitude in under a second - an acceleration several times that which is physically possible. It was very obviously not a situation requiring reserve activation.

There are also several incidents where they have fired on the ground (pressurized aircraft, slamming a car trunk lid, etc). Another physical impossibility - there is no way to be on the ground, and then in freefall at firing speed a fraction of a second later.

Any sudden, short pressure spike will cause the Vigil to fire, even if it is sitting on the ground. It is clear that the Vigil makes little or no effort to filter the data, nor to detect what should be non-firing situations. These are situations that are easy to deal with, yet the Vigil is no better than a mechanical AAD such as the FXC 12000 in that regard.

Not proven as a defined problem? The problem is clearly defined and it has been shown quite a few times that it exists. The manufacturer says so themselves every time they explain why one of these firings occurred.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Mar 23, 2011, 10:38 AM
Post #24 of 117 (2532 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
I don't recall any talk of banning that AAD, and I'd like to know why the two are being treated differently.

I refused to buy either.

But, recognize that the Argus cutter failed. So if it was needed, it didn't work. It then created a dangerous situation if you didn't catch it.

The Vigil firing with the door was wrong, but much more in line with how an AAD should operate.

Quote:
But you posted some very good reasons why we should ban an AAD that does bad things, which begs the question of why one is banned but not the other.

Different reasons for the failures.

Just to be sure, I'll restate - I am not opposed to the ban on Argus. In fact, as it stands now, I recommend CYPRES2 as the only acceptable AAD.

The Vigil firing in the plane (with the door open, and that is very important) also creates a dangerous situation if you didn't catch it.

Yes, different reasons for the failures. But failures nonetheless. Either can kill.

"Much more in line with how an AAD should operate"? CYPRES doesn't arm so early, and that's what invites the Vigil to fire when it should not.

According to the manufacturer, they said the device operated as designed. To me, that means that they are okay with their AAD firing inside an aircraft when nobody was even skydiving yet.

I am not okay with that.


BrianM  (D 661)

Mar 23, 2011, 10:45 AM
Post #25 of 117 (2521 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ridestrong] Philosophy of banning the Argus [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Argus just seems more like a no brainer.

So in the case of the Vigil, you have an AAD that could misfire at any time - in the plane, in the door, etc. I don't trust them to not fire at an inopportune moment. I don't want to jump one, and I don't even like having them in the plane with me. Seems like a no brainer to me!


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Gear and Rigging

 


Search for (options)