Argus SB?

[Gary73 8]

What happened to the post about the Argus SB recalling certain cutter heads? Can't seem to find it anymore.

And on that subject, why hasn't Aviacom had the guts to mention it on their own web site?

Thanks

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

What happened to the post about the Argus SB recalling certain cutter heads? Can't seem to find it anymore.

And on that subject, why hasn't Aviacom had the guts to mention it on their own web site?

Thanks

Are you talking about the recent announcement distributed by USPA?

If so -

I've had a couple of emails with Aviacom, and they say that the cutter recall does not apply anywhere other than France. There seemed to be some surprise to hear that USPA had published the bulletin.

I don't know quite how I feel about that, but Aviacom's not going to replace my cutter or the cutters of my customers here in the USA. At least, not at this point.

Anyway, it seems to be Aviacom's position that there is nothing wrong with the cutters, but that the French have required replacement nonetheless.

(Don't get mad at me. I'm just the messenger.)

[bucketlistpilot 1]

https://www.apf.asn.au/ArticleDocuments/142/APF_TD_03-2010_Issued_July_12th_2010_Argus_AAD.pdf.aspx

I hope they hurry up and get this resolved. Argus has been banned from use in Australia unless B licenced or above.

Ian Purvis
http://www.loadupsoftware.com
LoadUp DZ Management App
[email protected]

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

https://www.apf.asn.au/ArticleDocuments/142/APF_TD_03-2010_Issued_July_12th_2010_Argus_AAD.pdf.aspx

I hope they hurry up and get this resolved. Argus has been banned from use in Australia unless B licenced or above.

Here's a clicky

https://www.apf.asn.au/ArticleDocuments/142/APF_TD_03-2010_Issued_July_12th_2010_Argus_AAD.pdf.aspx

[Gary73 8]

Thanks!

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

[jurgencamps 0]

Quote

I hope they hurry up and get this resolved. Argus has been banned from use in Australia unless B licenced or above.

Who says that Argus is to blame? I do know that there is a thread in incidents about this accident. But all the facts made public do not neccesarily point to ARGUS. Maybe there is a problem with the ARGUS in this accident, but it is also very well possible that there was a rigging mistake or a user mistake or ...

Any AAD only cuts the loop. If the loop is not correctly installed or if the reserve is not packed correctly or .... can cause a reserve not to open in time.
I have an ARGUS and after reading all the postings made about that accident, I still not have any problem jumping with this AAD.

[bucketlistpilot 1]

Yep I agree. I think the APF jumped the gun on this one

Ian Purvis
http://www.loadupsoftware.com
LoadUp DZ Management App
[email protected]

[JeffBarlow 10]

Yes, APF did jump the gun this time.

There are number of aspects to consider here:
1. I don't think APF thoroughly investigated circumstances of what happened in Poland, well, we yet to see their own findings and analysis, most likely the decision was based on what was officially published by polish authorities. And people who was following the whole process do know that Polish authorities failed to present a bullet proof evidence that AAD did not do it's job they way it supposes to;

2. I hope more experienced jumpers/experts will comment on the fact why A licence jumpers only are not allowed to jump with Argus AAD.
I believe there is something here that needs to be thoroughly elaborated with all the pros and cons, whether that decision legit and makes sense. Otherwise it looks like a freshly licenced jumper is not allowed to use an AAD of their choice, in case of Argus becoming the one, because of very disputable reasons. I'm just not sure how all Cypres issues & recalls falls into the category as being a safe AAD for A licenced jumpers????....

3. And as a matter of fact:
Rory Hatchet has been recently appointed as APF's Director of Rigging.
Rory Hatchet is also personally involved in a commercial distribution & promotion of some brands of Skydiving gear, and Airtec's product is being among of those. He is also well know as being a strong advocate of Cypres AAD as being the ONLY TRUE AAD.
I'm just wondering what APF was looking at making the decision that poses restrictions of usage of Aviacom products in the country, when one of its directors has a clear commercial interest in product's distribution of Aviacom's rival company. And this only happened shortly after Rory's appointment to his current position. Is this as simple coincident?????..... Or it's called market protection nowadays????.....
I'm also wondering whether anybody can be appointed to perform in the capacity of one of the Directors of APF, USPA, etc.... who's involvement in decision making process could be influenced not only by the community's safety concerns, also by other external factors. Otherwise the whole process could be set up just to serve someone's personal commercial interests.