USPA 0
Does any1 have the test report yet?
I almost fell out of my chair after reading this:
"This decision has been taken after several incidents with this AAD brand, and mainly after
the tests performed by the Dutch Rigger Association, VVV. The complete report made by the
VVV is clear enough."
I am a dutch instructor, licensed by the only governing parachuting association in The Netherlands, KNVvL. The KNVvL has NO bulletins out on the Argus, nor does it impose any restrictions on its use. The VvV is NOT an authority on anything in The Netherlands, it's no more then a club of riggers. (which is consulted by the KNVvL, but has no authority on its own). What scares me even more is the fact that the VvV is in the midst of some "political" turmoil so a report from them should be read with some caution. I would love to read this report, since I jump an Argus too and would like to see how test were setup and how they consulted Aviacom (Argus) and if the test were done with production units, or test units (which should not to be instaled, but only piggybacked on alot of jumps to gether data)
I almost fell out of my chair after reading this:
"This decision has been taken after several incidents with this AAD brand, and mainly after
the tests performed by the Dutch Rigger Association, VVV. The complete report made by the
VVV is clear enough."
I am a dutch instructor, licensed by the only governing parachuting association in The Netherlands, KNVvL. The KNVvL has NO bulletins out on the Argus, nor does it impose any restrictions on its use. The VvV is NOT an authority on anything in The Netherlands, it's no more then a club of riggers. (which is consulted by the KNVvL, but has no authority on its own). What scares me even more is the fact that the VvV is in the midst of some "political" turmoil so a report from them should be read with some caution. I would love to read this report, since I jump an Argus too and would like to see how test were setup and how they consulted Aviacom (Argus) and if the test were done with production units, or test units (which should not to be instaled, but only piggybacked on alot of jumps to gether data)
The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...
Quotethe above is nothing but conjecture, and ill advised conjecture at that.
Have you read the test results or viewed the pictures of the tests? They might change your mind.
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals
Check your email.
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals
Check your email.
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals
RIGGER 0
You are right !!!
The h/c mfg. is the only one to certify the AAD fitting into his h/c, best to be done with the AAD mfg.
The AAD mfg. has no right to say: "I test it & it fits"
Final word is by the h/c mfg.
Paratec in Germany should read that & change his saying that the AAD mfg. is the final word.
I'll not open it wide but the TSO holder is the only
one to approve the AAD into his h/c & testing it with the AAD mfg.
Safe Rigging !!!
gjhdiver 0
QuoteCheck your email.
OK, checked it.
Thanks,
I've looked through this and although I have yet to
talk to Karel Goorts sbout it, it seems kind of iffy
to me on first look.
Firstly, they are using a strange swoop test with no
tension on the loops to evaluate the AADs, and then
declare that the Argus misfired during it. The Argus
has a defined swoop mode, and the test was run in the
standard mode. Also, they say that it's no excuse that the loops were not under tension. This is not correct, as that is the way the system is designed to work. It's not a real test if you place the units outside their design parameters and then fail them in tests that they were never designed to pass in the first place.
Secondly, I've inspected my units, and they don't
display the cutter design that the preproduction units
do. They seem no different in construction from the
the Cypres and Vigil cutters.
Thirdly, the Argus was never tested in the Basik
container in any way as far as I can see. You'd think they would actually have tested them in that container system.
Lastly, they bag on the Argus, but allow the Vigil and
FXC access, two systems that have a history of
documented misfires at present. I'm sure that those companies are working their issues at present, but it does seem unusual that they don't seem affected in this banning.
It all smells a bit fishy to me, but I'll talk to
Karel and get his take on it. I have no idea why new
products get so much resistance in the market place.
Cypres got it when they first arrived, especially with
some containers. FXC got it, and Vigil are getting it now. It seems like it's the Argus turn in the barrel now for some
reason. I'm sure it will all shake out soon enough.
If it doesn't, I'll be the first to take them out, but so far, I've been impressed with them.
QuoteQuoteCheck your email.
OK, checked it.
Thanks,
I've looked through this and although I have yet to
talk to Karel Goorts sbout it, it seems kind of iffy
to me on first look.
Firstly, they are using a strange swoop test with no
tension on the loops to evaluate the AADs, and then
declare that the Argus misfired during it. The Argus
has a defined swoop mode, and the test was run in the
standard mode. Also, they say that it's no excuse that the loops were not under tension. This is not correct, as that is the way the system is designed to work. It's not a real test if you place the units outside their design parameters and then fail them in tests that they were never designed to pass in the first place.
Secondly, I've inspected my units, and they don't
display the cutter design that the preproduction units
do. They seem no different in construction from the
the Cypres and Vigil cutters.
Thirdly, the Argus was never tested in the Basik
container in any way as far as I can see. You'd think they would actually have tested them in that container system.
Lastly, they bag on the Argus, but allow the Vigil and
FXC access, two systems that have a history of
documented misfires at present. I'm sure that those companies are working their issues at present, but it does seem unusual that they don't seem affected in this banning.
It all smells a bit fishy to me, but I'll talk to
Karel and get his take on it. I have no idea why new
products get so much resistance in the market place.
Cypres got it when they first arrived, especially with
some containers. FXC got it, and Vigil are getting it now. It seems like it's the Argus turn in the barrel now for some
reason. I'm sure it will all shake out soon enough.
If it doesn't, I'll be the first to take them out, but so far, I've been impressed with them.
Like Sparkey said CHECK YOUR FACT'S. You've already atribuited one miss-quote to me (which really pisses me off!!). Good reporting is all about getting the facts straight the first time. In the advent of a vaccuum of fact don't draw conjecture about the subject at hand. Bad JuJu
Mick.
Carry on.
USPA 0
Thanks,
I just read it, that report in flawed in so many ways I don't even know where to begin! I don't see how any conclusions can be made from this report...
updated to restate last sentece, this one better reflects what I ment.
I just read it, that report in flawed in so many ways I don't even know where to begin! I don't see how any conclusions can be made from this report...
updated to restate last sentece, this one better reflects what I ment.
The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...
BKR 0
Become a munufacturer and you will see.
Jérôme Bunker
Basik Air Concept
www.basik.fr
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Le-Luc-France/BASIK-AIR-CONCEPT/172133350468
Basik Air Concept
www.basik.fr
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Le-Luc-France/BASIK-AIR-CONCEPT/172133350468
USPA 0
Sorry, my mistake, when I reread my post, I see that it offends Basik, but this is not my intension. IMHO the report is flawed, simply because it is not reproducible. There is simply not enough data. There wasn't even a dedicated test jump, and no logging data of the jump in question was provided. Also it's only anyone's gues what the tension on the loop was, totally onaccetable for an official test, fun for home play, but not a serious test. Neither a test protocol is provided, nor were cutters/units tested in an reproducible maner, almost at random.
Also in their justification for the tests they comment on a misfire, but are unclear on what misfire, where it happend and why they call it a misfire (since even in the justification it states it was during testing). Then they mimic circumstances it which they place the unit outside design parameters, in which the manufactorer says it will not function properly and conclude it does not function properly. (Wow, what a conclusion!).
Furthermore they state they use production units, while Argus states it are pre-production units. Although they place a question mark around this statement, they do not elaborate, nor state why this is questionable.
Since I have had the very first production batch of Arguses in my own hand, I know that from day 1 they have shielding on the display. (vertical first on the first (40 ? I believe) next diagonal. On the low resolution picture provided, I see no such shielding. Although the shielding doesn't say its an production, absence of the shielding says it is an pre-production test/evaluation version.
Furthermore the dz/rigger involved in testing is endorcing Vigil (or was at least) and we all know Vigil and Argus aren't the best of friends. For the sake of clearity, my DZ is involved with Argus, so I too am possible biased. To clearify this even further, I am not stating this IS an issue here, but common sense states it can (unintesionaly) have influence. This is even furthermore a reason why it is sad the tests were done (IMHO) in such a bad way.
Also in their justification for the tests they comment on a misfire, but are unclear on what misfire, where it happend and why they call it a misfire (since even in the justification it states it was during testing). Then they mimic circumstances it which they place the unit outside design parameters, in which the manufactorer says it will not function properly and conclude it does not function properly. (Wow, what a conclusion!).
Furthermore they state they use production units, while Argus states it are pre-production units. Although they place a question mark around this statement, they do not elaborate, nor state why this is questionable.
Since I have had the very first production batch of Arguses in my own hand, I know that from day 1 they have shielding on the display. (vertical first on the first (40 ? I believe) next diagonal. On the low resolution picture provided, I see no such shielding. Although the shielding doesn't say its an production, absence of the shielding says it is an pre-production test/evaluation version.
Furthermore the dz/rigger involved in testing is endorcing Vigil (or was at least) and we all know Vigil and Argus aren't the best of friends. For the sake of clearity, my DZ is involved with Argus, so I too am possible biased. To clearify this even further, I am not stating this IS an issue here, but common sense states it can (unintesionaly) have influence. This is even furthermore a reason why it is sad the tests were done (IMHO) in such a bad way.
The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...
gjhdiver 0
Quote
Like Sparkey said CHECK YOUR FACT'S. You've already atribuited one miss-quote to me (which really pisses me off!!).
Mick.
Carry on.
Er Mick, I didn't quote you at all. My post was written after reading the attachment I was sent, not any of the previous posts in the thread.
Shurely shome mishtake ?
If I buggered it up with some cut and paste job, I apologize.
If I buggered it up with some cut and paste job, I apologize.
I'll accept that.
Mick.
gjhdiver 0
Here's a direct answer to his question from Karel Goorts of Aviacom SA, manufacturer of the Argus.
As you know by now the Argus has been prohibited for use in Basik rigs. The
Danish Parachute Association has been following this move. Without
consulting Aviacom SA. This is totally unjustified.
We, as manufacturer of the Argus AAD, like to clarify a couple of things.
First: there have been NO INCIDENTS and NO ACCIDENTS and NO MISFIRES.
Second: All this trouble was started by a Mr Jo Oosterveer, so called on
behalf of the Dutch Rigger Association
Third: Basik and the Danes have been following the advice of Mr Oosterveer
Fourth: We are authorised for use in the Netherlands by the only governing
body for skydiving; the Dutch Royal Aeroclub, department Parachuting.
Fifth: the report of the stating the Argus problems was part fake,
part unrealistic, and performed without our knowledge.
So: this is the world upside down: because we were granted an authorisation
of use in the Netherlands, a Dutch rigger, speaking only for him started a
worldwide mudslinging campaign.
We formally state that the Argus will do what it is designed for if it is
correctly installed in any rig; that is: cutting the loop at a certain
altitude at a certain speed.
If you like to know more about the real situation, please contact the head
of the technical committee of the Dutch Parachute Association, Mr Herman
Landsman or the Head of the Bureau of the Dutch Parachute Association, Mr
Ronald Overdijk.
You can also call us +32 4858688788 or mail at [email protected] for more
information.
Blue skies,
Karel Goorts
Managing director
As you know by now the Argus has been prohibited for use in Basik rigs. The
Danish Parachute Association has been following this move. Without
consulting Aviacom SA. This is totally unjustified.
We, as manufacturer of the Argus AAD, like to clarify a couple of things.
First: there have been NO INCIDENTS and NO ACCIDENTS and NO MISFIRES.
Second: All this trouble was started by a Mr Jo Oosterveer, so called on
behalf of the Dutch Rigger Association
Third: Basik and the Danes have been following the advice of Mr Oosterveer
Fourth: We are authorised for use in the Netherlands by the only governing
body for skydiving; the Dutch Royal Aeroclub, department Parachuting.
Fifth: the report of the stating the Argus problems was part fake,
part unrealistic, and performed without our knowledge.
So: this is the world upside down: because we were granted an authorisation
of use in the Netherlands, a Dutch rigger, speaking only for him started a
worldwide mudslinging campaign.
We formally state that the Argus will do what it is designed for if it is
correctly installed in any rig; that is: cutting the loop at a certain
altitude at a certain speed.
If you like to know more about the real situation, please contact the head
of the technical committee of the Dutch Parachute Association, Mr Herman
Landsman or the Head of the Bureau of the Dutch Parachute Association, Mr
Ronald Overdijk.
You can also call us +32 4858688788 or mail at [email protected] for more
information.
Blue skies,
Karel Goorts
Managing director
Whilst I agree that it sucks to be sued, the above is nothing but conjecture, and ill advised conjecture at that. All the Argus units that I have seen have been manufactured to a standard as good or better than any other unit available. Also, being closely involved with the manufacture of the Wings container, we were very impressed by the efforts that Argus went to to ensure that their unit was compatible with our containers.
I have no issues with either selling or using the Argus AAD therefore.
The quote you used was not from me, it was from Jerome Bunker. My response to his post was strictly about being sued. I have never seen an Argus and therefore can offer no opinion on them. The way you cut the post in response to me makes it sound like I made that statement, when in reality I did not.
Mick.