Philosophy of banning the Argus

[brwonder 0]

Well... if it isn't my choice I'll just be pissed that I paid $300.00 per season to have an AAD... deal with it and go by something else. I still have the choice to not wear one but I believe that`s a risk I am not willing to take.

[skydiverek 54]

Quote

>Until the accident, Cypres had advertised that it was imposible to meet
>these parameters under an open canopy . . .

Initially it was. When people started really loading up their canopies it became possible. (An Airtec guy wrote about that possibility in a Skydiving article.)

I remember the Airtec article in Skydiving Magazine, and recall that Airtec's conclusion was that "it is not possible to reach activation speeds and still land safely". That is why the initial author (test jumper) wrote a reply to Airtec (which was never published). So, Airtec basically reasurred everyone that you can do whatever you want and the Cypres will not fire (even though they say, that it 'may' happen, they lean heavily on the side that it is impossible). Airtec did not even change this after Jay Moledzki had a Cypres fire during a swoop in France (where he had to have an AAD due to a law).

OK, I just found it:

Original test jumps:
http://swoop.skydiveworld.com/c_article/by_the_numbers_1.htm

Airtec response in Skydiving Magazine:
http://www.cypres-usa.com/october_2003_skydiving_letter.pdf

Never published response by the initial test jumper:
http://swoop.skydiveworld.com/c_article/response_to_airtec.htm

[Ron 7]

Quote

Where is that 86% coming from

IDK... Not my quote

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

unfortunately that would not be Aviacom's problem, but a USER problem

Maybe, but I'd bet the argus manual does not tell the user to check to see if the cutter *almost* cut the reserve.

The fact is back in the day AADs were not used because the risks and hassle was more than the average jumper would accept.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

>An AAD should be expected to do TWO things:
>1) Properly cut the reserve closing loop and
>2) Do so at the appropriate time (high speed, low altitude).

Re: the 2 requirements, Simon, you & I are in complete agreement. That sums it up well. In particular, in the past I've worried more about an AAD firing when I didn't want it to (which falls under #2 above) than I have worried about it failing to save me when I need it.

Quote

But in reality, if it's not broke, don't fix it. I think we can agree that there is an AAD option on the market that is not broke and doesn't violate either of our expectations/requirements.

I've just never understood some people's willingness to buy 'El Cheapo' brand over a few poor gimmicky marketing points, especially when it comes to a last chance life saving piece of equipment.

But while I agree with most of your logic, I disagree with the assumption that most people are buying other AAD's to save a buck or two. I can only speak to my experience, but price had nothing to do with my decision.

I've been jumping an Argus for almost 3 years now, and paid close to what I would've paid for a Cypres. I bought the Argus because it was multi-mode. And specifically, unlike with a Speed Cypres, it disarms the AAD after deployment (whereas a Speed Cypres simply raises the activation threshold). I also wasn't going with a Vigil because, again, my bigger fear was an AAD working when I didn't want it to, and Vigil has shown issues with that, by design.

I wanted an AAD that I was certain wasn't going to fire when I was coming out of a 720. Argus met those conditions, by the simple virtue that it shuts down upon deployment when in Swoop mode.

I regularly jump where ground level is 5200', where as we know, canopy speeds are faster. I've seen firsthand someone on a 74sf canopy cause a standard Cypres to fire, and someone on a 107-ish canopy causing a Vigil to fire. All within 50 feet of the ground.

I'm also a light guy, but on my Crossfire2-105 loaded at 1.4, I can set off my audible in a front riser dive. Those things being the case, I'm not convinced that someone under the right conditions can't break the 96mph Speed Cypres threshold. Remember - Cypres told us repeatedly that they had tested the original Cypres, and that no one besides Luigi Cani on a 46sf canopy was able to activate it. (The link is still available on the Cypres-USA site).

**None of this has any bearing on the cutter issues we're seeing now - just wanted to point out that there are other considerations than just price. Cypres may not prove to meet the 2 conditions you mentioned above, in the long run.

In spite of them doing pretty well so far.

Signatures are the new black.

[piisfish 135]

Quote

Quote

unfortunately that would not be Aviacom's problem, but a USER problem

Maybe, but I'd bet the argus manual does not tell the user to check to see if the cutter *almost* cut the reserve.
.

before each jump, you need to check whatever your AAD says don't you ?
In the Argus case, it shows "CTR ERR" (or something similar)

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

Quote

But if I buy B car, and MF says if you drive it and a kid in the back opens window your steering wheel will brake, and on top of that says they are aware but ok with that... well I really can't be ok with that.

That is you not liking the parameter.... That does not mean it was a malfunction.

The company that makes Vigil has even stated that it firing in that situation is not a malfunction.

If I buy a car and the manufactor tells me that if a kid opens the back window the e-brake will lock up.... Well when it happens it is not a mal, but rather a feature that you may not like.

Right. But when it's a feature I don't like that can seriously jeopardize the lives of an Otter full of skydivers, then it does make me wonder why someone isn't calling for a banning on a broader scale.

(Not saying I'm in the "this is a conspiracy" camp - I think Argus's response to this whole situation has been disappointing (to understate the matter). But I DO think that the "features" of a Vigil can be dangerous, as can the "malfunctions" of an Argus.)

Put another way: why does splitting these hairs matter? If the Argus was locking down reserve containers by design, and calling it a feature, should it not still be banned?

Signatures are the new black.

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

*Next point (sorry, I know it's terribly rude to reply to one's own post)


How long can Aviocom go without issuing some sort of statement in regards to these recent rescinded approvals? I mean, I keep checking their website for a letter or something saying "We're working on it" or "BRB", "TTYL", "OMG WTF?"

In case you didn't see, Argus has sent a letter to some owners who have inquired.

The content and tone of which is disappointing to lots of us, to say the least.

Signatures are the new black.

[billvon 2,395]

>In the Argus case, it shows "CTR ERR" (or something similar)

Or nothing, as in the Portugal case.

[piisfish 135]

Quote

>In the Argus case, it shows "CTR ERR" (or something similar)

Or nothing, as in the Portugal case.

what do you do with an AAD showing a blank screen ?

In the Portugal case, there was a blank screen, and the cutter fired (and failed to cut) LATER

In the Texas case, NORMALLY the display should have shown the error message "after the packjob"


There also has been a case of a "world class" skydiver jumping a german AAD with a blank screen after multiple turn-on cycles... She got a high altitude reserve ride...

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[billvon 2,395]

>what do you do with an AAD showing a blank screen ?

Well, from experiences reported here, with a Cypres you assume it's off - with an Argus you assume it's broken and can misfire.

[piisfish 135]

Quote

>what do you do with an AAD showing a blank screen ?

Well, from experiences reported here, with a Cypres you assume it's off - with an Argus you assume it's broken and can misfire.

assuming a Cypres is OFF is WRONG (ask around in Eloy, or ask Airtec). A blank screen after trying to cycle it screams "DON'T JUMP ME (and call my Mummy )". This is how I understand page 25 of the Cypres2 manual.

You can only assume it is OFF when you finish the TURN-OFF procedure and the display turns blank.

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[billvon 2,395]

>This is how I understand page 25 of the Cypres2 manual.

I agree; that's how I read the manual as well.

Here's the situation I was thinking about:

I have a reserve ride during a training day, and I land and try to find a loaner rig before the next load. Someone I trust loans me their rig. I give it a quick once over, put it on and get on the plane. At 6000 feet someone gives me a gear check.

"Looks OK but the AAD is off; the display is blank" they say. "Was it on when you got it?" Oops.

Now, shame on me for not checking that on the ground. But what do I do then? Based on my experience with AAD's, I would jump a Cypres that looked off, but I would _not_ jump an Argus that looked off.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi skydiverek,

Thank you for putting those links up; it should help educate people.

As I have posted on this website previously, I was on the drop-zone ( Skydive Oregon in Molalla, Oregon ) the day that Troy did the jump & got the CYPRES to fire. I talked to him about the jump & assisted him in getting geared up. I did not witness the actual jump as I was talking with some other people. I did see the fired cutter after he walked back to the clubhouse.

I do not have a dog in this fight but I strongly disagree with the position taken by AirTec regarding Troy's jump & the results.

I was there and I saw the before & after.

JerryBaumchen

[piisfish 135]

Quote

Based on my experience with AAD's, I would jump a Cypres that looked off, but I would _not_ jump an Argus that looked off.

the key with any AAD is to know if it had been turned ON or not. IIRC the jumper I was referring to is an AZ Arsenal member (but I can be wrong, not the 1st or the last time). She tried to turn it on to no avail. Blank screen. Jump. Cypres fire.

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[Unstable 8]

I've been pouring over the PIA tech papers, incident reports, SBs et cetera for the last 2 hours trying to sort this all out in my mind. I am a Quality Engineer ~ this is what I love. There is ONE THING That REALLY bothers me, however.

*******
Argus claims that between 2%-5% of their cutters are tested (fired) as a batch acceptance sampling plan. Very logical ~ I wonder if Cypres or Vigil fire as many of their cutters off. SO! Think about this ~ Argus tested (fired) 5% of all units, plus the countless fired during initial acceptance testing, et cetera. I have a very hard time believing a problem that came out before did not once manifest itslef in the lab ~ they tested them with no tenstion, all they way up beyond where any rigger could close a container.

Did they really not have one incomplete cut in the lab?

=========Shaun ==========

[yoink 321]

Are you not assuming that the test firing is done with a cable in place to verify clean severance?

If clean severance was never a problem, isn't it more likely that they want to see that 100 / 100 fire when they are supposed to in regard to their activation perameters, and it's that which they look for?

[Unstable 8]

Quote

Are you not assuming that the test firing is done with a cable in place to verify clean severance?

If clean severance was never a problem, isn't it more likely that they want to see that 100 / 100 fire when they are supposed to in regard to their activation perameters, and it's that which they look for?

Sorry Friend, I'm not 100% following your post. Yes, I am assuming that the test firing is done with a closing loop through the cutter, they all were ~ and variable tension (0-22+++ Pounds) on the loop.

My thought process is simply that if 2 incidents in the field show that the cutters have a problem severing the loop completely, then it is highly unlikely that they never witness this happen during laboratory acceptance or qualification testing.

Edited: See, if the problem were of this magnitude, ANY reasonable quality, acceptance, or qualification program would have had a few red flags pop up. That is my point.

=========Shaun ==========

[yoink 321]

Quote

Quote

Are you not assuming that the test firing is done with a cable in place to verify clean severance?

If clean severance was never a problem, isn't it more likely that they want to see that 100 / 100 fire when they are supposed to in regard to their activation perameters, and it's that which they look for?

they all were ~ and variable tension (0-22+++ Pounds) on the loop.

That's the bit I didn't know!

cheers

[hcsvader 1]

Quote

Quote

>what do you do with an AAD showing a blank screen ?

Well, from experiences reported here, with a Cypres you assume it's off - with an Argus you assume it's broken and can misfire.

assuming a Cypres is OFF is WRONG (ask around in Eloy, or ask Airtec). A blank screen after trying to cycle it screams "DON'T JUMP ME (and call my Mummy )". This is how I understand page 25 of the Cypres2 manual.

You can only assume it is OFF when you finish the TURN-OFF procedure and the display turns blank.

Seeing a blank screen on an AAD does not mean it has turned off. It is possible to turn on an AAD the disconnect the control head. The AAD will still be on when you reconnect the control head.

Have you seen my pants?
it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream
>:)

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>what do you do with an AAD showing a blank screen ?

Well, from experiences reported here, with a Cypres you assume it's off - with an Argus you assume it's broken and can misfire.

assuming a Cypres is OFF is WRONG (ask around in Eloy, or ask Airtec). A blank screen after trying to cycle it screams "DON'T JUMP ME (and call my Mummy )". This is how I understand page 25 of the Cypres2 manual.

You can only assume it is OFF when you finish the TURN-OFF procedure and the display turns blank.

Seeing a blank screen on an AAD does not mean it has turned off. It is possible to turn on an AAD the disconnect the control head. The AAD will still be on when you reconnect the control head.

Taking into consideration all the various comments about this, we are left with ONLY one course of action.

IF THE AAD IS NOT ACTING THE WAY IT IS SUPPOSED TO ACT, DO NOT TAKE IT INTO THE AIR.

Thinking it is off is not good enough.

Even turning it on and off is not good enough.

Passing self-test is not good enough.

IF YOU SAW ANY UNEXPLAINED BEHAVIOR, DO NOT TAKE THAT AAD INTO THE AIR.

You simply have no idea what that device might do.

Remember, the switch is not a power or on/off switch. It is an input to a processor. The processor never really shuts down. It is watching for your switch presses. Something is always "on" enough to see those switch presses, and once you realize that, you cannot help but realize that whenever you see any sort of unexplained behavior, ALL BETS ARE OFF.

At that point, the only acceptable reaction is to consider the device unairworthy.

DO NOT TAKE IT INTO THE AIR.

[danielcroft 2]

http://www.pia.com/piapubs/ServiceBulletins/TEXASUSA211.pdf
According to the PIA report, the rig in question wasn't entirely in order, at least, sufficiently in my mind to cast doubt on effectively shutting down a company. On top of this, according to Aviacom, they haven't been permitted to check the unit in question and therefore are unable to come to any conclusions or most importantly to a resolution.

I think it's fair to say that if some issue is found with the cutter then (at least for me) a full recall and switch to new cutter is just about all that would allay any concerns with the Argus.

Until Aviacom has had a chance to inspect the offending cutter and system then I think a lot of this talk is pretty harsh. The other incidents were found to be related to the 2007 cutter sequence which resulted in a recall (and subsequently fruitless) test. The cutter in question is a later model that doesn't fall inside the previous recall so it seems pretty poor form to me that Aviacom shouldn't be given the opportunity to test and at least a little time to work out the issue, especially in light of some of the issues with the rig reported in the PIA report. I don't mean that the units should be considered safe until then, just that they currently do anything about the issue.

As for why different rules should apply to different manufacturers, I don't believe we're talking about apples and apples here. The Vigil 2 issues are not a death sentence (although they could be), the Argus issue is a little more directly connected to an issue and could result in a state which is unsolvable and likely fatal.

I do not own an Argus, I own a Vigil 2. I would jump without an AAD (if I had to). I haven't considered buying a CYPRES after any of the incidents in discussion.

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

My thought process is simply that if 2 incidents in the field show that the cutters have a problem severing the loop completely, then it is highly unlikely that they never witness this happen during laboratory acceptance or qualification testing.

Edited: See, if the problem were of this magnitude, ANY reasonable quality, acceptance, or qualification program would have had a few red flags pop up. That is my point.

If the test articles are not subjected to the conditions that are asserted to enhance the possibility of a jammed loop (the "argus cutter review" analysis), then they have no meaning.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[nigel99 143]

Quote

Quote

Are you not assuming that the test firing is done with a cable in place to verify clean severance?

If clean severance was never a problem, isn't it more likely that they want to see that 100 / 100 fire when they are supposed to in regard to their activation perameters, and it's that which they look for?

Sorry Friend, I'm not 100% following your post. Yes, I am assuming that the test firing is done with a closing loop through the cutter, they all were ~ and variable tension (0-22+++ Pounds) on the loop.

My thought process is simply that if 2 incidents in the field show that the cutters have a problem severing the loop completely, then it is highly unlikely that they never witness this happen during laboratory acceptance or qualification testing.

Edited: See, if the problem were of this magnitude, ANY reasonable quality, acceptance, or qualification program would have had a few red flags pop up. That is my point.

I think it is quite plausible that the test method in the lab accounts for the "known" failure modes and provides test coverage. If there is another mechanism that contributes towards failure then it would pass the test and not rouse suspicion. For example what happens to a cutter that has been through the swoop pond a dozen times or that has "aged" allowing oxide layers etc to build up? This is a hypothetical question and not meant to imply that either scenario has ever occurred.

I still find your post interesting - it is fascinating to have engineers and riggers mulling over a problem. Certainly makes one think.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Until Aviacom has had a chance to inspect the offending cutter and system then I think a lot of this talk is pretty harsh.

Aviacom has had cutter problems as far back as 2006. (see attachment 2) It is way past time for “harsh talk”. It is time to take action that will force this company to make the needed changes in their product or go away. And now they are going with the “conspiracy” defense. That’s lame.
On thing that shows a glaring lack of attention to detail is that the first SB they put out on cutters in 2006 was not even dated. (see attachment 1)

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals